/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10825054
Why is there mould on the equipment?

>>10820526
>Are you taking issue with a specific point on the website or not? What is your evidence that the landings were faked, preferably a piece of evidence which hasn't been addressed already on the site.
Pic related, why is there mould?
>Utter nonsense. Speeding up footage so that things fall at a similar rate to things on Earth makes every other movement by astronauts and the rover seem ridiculously unnatural and jerky.
Huh? The footage can be sped up so that everything is moving together as expected on earth.
>Nice fake "fact" you got there. Said "rock" was given to the PM of Holland before the actual good-will tour had begun, also it was much larger and looked nothing like the actual samples given out during the good will tour. Apparently the PM died and his relatives found the commemorative "rock" and mistook it to be real. Look at pics of actual goodwill samples, they're tiny. Of course I wouldn't expect you to know any of this considering you just saw the headline "fake moon rock Netherlands" and took it at face value without doing any actual research.
Why was this "rock" given in the first place?
>Actual geologists disagree.
>http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm
The author has worked with NASA since '69.
>Link is to an actual picture of an astronaut collecting rock samples:
Looks more like dust to me.
>Because they, like several other nations had the capability to track the position of the capsule and its radio broadcasts.
>Are these seriously the best arguments you people can come up with after 50 years since A11? A false story about a "fake" moon rock and some irritating contrarianism?
If the Soviets tracked them not being on the moon - would you believe the data?