i remember in the 80's we bought the first video camera you could buy. it consisted of a HUGE, HEAVY VCR that hung from your shoulder. Attached to this was a video camera, that was the size of a surface-to-air missile.

remember, this was mid-80's, so, with technology from 20-years previous in 1962, am i supposed to believe that man actually got that thing onto the moon and then took off and came back several times?

Why no blast crater under the module?

Krumple -- I am in no way defending Poseidon here.

But your point would have been more effective if you would spare him and the rest of us the namecalling. Thanks, and be mindful of our rules.

First of all, they were using film reels, and people have had handheld film recorders since long before the 1980s.

Secondly, they had this large device that was able to carry heavy objects, what was it called again oh yeah a SPACESHIP.

Third, don't people have something better to do than to give a rats ass about whether or not we landed on the moon? Who cares if we did or we didn't? Do we really need this to convince people that the government lies about things from time to time?

TurboLung, that the same ballistic missile technology that produced the Apollo rockets had been invented in the 1940s (ask anyone in London who survived a V2 rocket attack), and the same German rocket engineer (Werner von Braun) who invented the V2 was part of the Apollo program.

Speaking of World War II, there were handheld 8mm movie cameras in use then too, including some taken during the amphibious landings in Normandy, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima. You'd think that this would be yet easier with an additional 25 years of technology and 1/6 the gravity of earth.

most of these crashed before hitting their target. there is a huge difference in firing a rocket with an explosive payload a short disitance [compared to outer space] that is meant to hit a general area.

you are missing the point. i am not innterested in filming anything, i am interested in the fact that the technology was so archaic [compared to today] that moving pictures were captured with reels.

No, I get your point. And your point about the technical implausibility of getting a handheld camera to the moon is incorrect based on the extant technology.

no. no you don't. it's not that hard to get what i am saying. it has NOTHING to do with getting a camera on the moon. i picked the camera, as an example of how backward technology was back then. i could have said telephone and talked about how backward phones were then. so, no, you have missed my point completely.

Had you done so I'd have pointed out your error in that regard. Every last bit of evidence you offer is a pipe dream, a fantasy. With no good evidence, you grab a handful of sand and pebbles and throw it in the air hoping to hit us all in the eye.

No, Turbo, I get your point. Tell me about the impossibility of spacesuits next. No, bottled oxygen. No, moon rovers. No, video cameras. Tell me about the nature of blast craters. Tell me about conspiracies. Tell us it all.