Comment on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence by Alex.
Lift offs, Apollo 15, 16, 17:
All other discussion ultimately is superfluous about these videos.
However, from a single engine starting from cold looking it from a very close distance the flame should be visible.
no atmospheric pressure, visible flame:
The case of the Apollo Program should be decided looking at all the evidence or rather the complete lack of evidence. The first analysis of lunar rocks should have been a comparison of the Apollo rocks with lunar rocks originating from the Antarctica. Such a study has never been carried out, even though no scientist is that stupid as to miss that one. The decision not to carry out this comparison/analysis must have come from NASA management and not from the scientists.
I.e.: We come short handed again, not a shred of evidence.
Presently there is enough information to compare the Russian, Apollo and Antarctic lunar material. Many is on the internet but you have to pay for some of them.
Analysis of the Apollo lunar material indicate that it is very “Earth like”, that is why the present theory of the Moon’s creation is that the Moon comes from a collision of the Earth with an other Planet/object. Almost all other evidence than the Apollo lunar material indicate other scenarios for the creation of the Moon.
No matter where we look: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR MEN LANDING ON THE MOON.
And that is where the discussion should start. Then we can discuss whether NASA Astronauts landed on the Moon, even though the pictures look like composite and manipulated images, the videos are poor quality and the claimed lunar rocks are or aren’t from the Moon. There are legitimate excuses for most of these, but is there enough reason for all of that?