Do you think it happened?
Me? No. In history last week we watched a tape saying it was all a big hoax, and even though it was obviously biased, it made some very interesting points. You'll need to see some footage or shots to know what I'm getting at here, but basically, these are the main facts against it:
Who was filming? There are key moments in the footage where it is quite obvious they messed up whilst filming. Who's filming when armstrong jumps out onto the moon? If he's the first man there, then how come we get an external shot of him jumping out?
Who was filming when the "Eagle" took off again? The shots we see are taken from the suface of the moon, that is clear, so did they leave a man behind?
Who was filmin two of the astronauts running around on the surface? Think about it, 3 men went to space, 2 to the surface (one remained in the "Challenger", I believe it was called), yet we see two men running around, filmed from the surface.
Where's the blast crater? In shots we see of the eagle on the moon's surface, the ground below it is perfectly flat, no markings whatsoever, so you're telling me a rocket engine wont even push dust around? Also, the eagle went through test flights on earth just two weeks before take off, and armstrong found it so hard to pilot he kept having to eject and leave the module to crash land.
There are layers of radiation between the moon and earth 100's of kilometers thick. The astronauts would have needed 6 inches of lead shielding to protect them from the high levels. There is absofuckinlutely no way that the eagle had 6 solid inches
of lead on it, and there's no way there suits did either. This is supposedly the reasons the Russians have never sent man to the moon.
The photo's and film footage had very suspicious features. I've already mentioned the Who's Filming
side, but what about the other aspects of the photography. In both the film and the photo's, where are the stars? With no atmosphere, stars would be clearly visible at all times on the moon, yet we see a pitch black sky.
In the photographs, the cameras used had crosshairs to help line up a shot, yet we see that some objects are IN FRONT of the crosshairs. C'est impossible. Also, the photos are extremely high quality and unbelievably accurate for the chest-mounted cameras used. These would be extremely hard to aim.
Another point about the photos, the most undeniable IMO, is that the background on some of the shots is the same, despite foreground objects being there in some but not in others. Surely these men didn't spend the time to actually pick up
the lander just to get a better shot.
The shadows, to me, are very perculiar, some fall at different angles, despite there only being one
light source. Also, a huge, deep black shadow is cast by the lander, yet when the 'naut jumps out to the surface, into this shadow, he is clearly lit, as though in a spot light.
They're pretty much the points that should make it pretty obvious to you, but there are many others. I've already typed 3074 characters so I think I'll finish with the point that when you speed the video footage up to double speed, it just appears that the men are running, and that the vehicle is driving round in a desert, just like *gasp* Nevada
(That's where Area 51 is
So, despite this highly argumentative post, what are your thoughts?