egafd.com

I can understand NASA's argument, that if they refute one lot of claims, they'll invite every loopy conspiracy-theorist to challenge them and it'll never end- a bit like the Grassy Knoll.........
But even though I think it's all bollocks, the points made about the shadows sent a shiver down my spine. I assume there's a rational explanation for the 'anomalies'- but I'm damned if I can think of one.
I think the conclusive proof that the landings took place lies in subsequent missions: it's obvious that those achievements could only have been made with prior practical experience, i.e. an initial landing.
Unless of course, the whole US space programme was faked...............

....and the logistical impossibility of keeping such a 'secret' absolutely, given the numbers involved..........

Im one for the faked theories Im afraid. We all love a conspiracy, and this is by far the best, pissing on JFK and Diana.
The main stumbling block for me is the route they took to the moon, passing through gamma rays which are lethal, unless you want to become The Hulk. The MINIMUM thickness of a lead shield that would protect is 6 foot, which would weigh a LOT. The module had lead for protection, but approx .75 of an inch thick, rendering it useless for protection.
I can go along with 'debris' dropped onto the moon and the shadows and flag fluttering et al, but the gamma ray route is a scientific fact, and no scientist can cover that up

Gamma-rays aren't necessarily lethal- as with a bullet you need to be hit in the right place. And the rays' angle of incidence would be another complicating factor.....
But it would be interesting to know if the astronauts suffered any long-term genetic damage.

The route these manned missions travel avoid the gamma radiation field. When the first mission went, the field was in its densist on the proposed route taken.
Subsequent trips are pencilled in with this in mind. That is a fact