My vote is yes, but I was just wondering where the rest of my infowarrior brothers and sisters stand on this issue.
1-There is no way the technology existed in the 1960's to pilot a craft and land it on the surface of the moon
This, and points 2 and 3 are the same. Gus may have disagreed, and tests may have failed, but that doesn't mean they didn't succeed when it mattered. Aside from that, there are very likely other factors in play, some which may have helped, some which may have hindered, that the tests could not fully duplicate.
4-In almost every picture of the apollo missions from the moon, one can clearly see multiple light sources, from the shadows going off in different directions to the astronauts being clearly visible in shadows. This is an impossibility if the sun was the only light source, as it wouldve been from the moon
A: Reflections from surface of the Moon and/or equipment.
B: They brought other lights with them.
What I don't get it, how can rockets work in the vacuum of space? When they thrust, what are they thrusting against?
To answer this: Pressure.
I'm likely not doing a good job explaining this very well, but that's it in a nutshell.
I'm trying to think about a good way to explain it. You're presumption is that Newton is wrong:
I'm looking for answers to this question and the standard NASA-approved answers just usually quote Newton: "Every action creates an equal and opposite reaction." Thus, they infer, combust fuel in a rocket and it must propel the rocket -- even in a vacuum. But Newton had never been to space. He based this law upon observations within Earth's atmosphere, and clearly, in an atmosphere this is how things work. Push against air and it does give you an opposite reaction. But again: There is no air in space!
When pressure builds, especially as a result of combustion or explosive force, it does not choose any single direction to go into. It goes in all directions. When a rocket has a single way for pressure to escape, it moves in the opposite direction. This is at least in part because of the pressure within it, acting against the more solid parts of the rocket, separate from any forces that are acted upon the rocket due to the directed energy that leaves. In other words, the rocket is pushing against itself.
Some sites say, that the rocket brings along its own mass against which to react. They claim the combusting rocket fuel pushes against previously expelled rocket fuel and that this provides the propulsion. Sounds sketchy to me.
While it would depend on the rocket, this could be accurate (I haven't tested it), for so long as the pressure and mass is there long enough to react to the escaping force before dissipating in the vacuum (which does take time after all).
Another answer says it's all based on kinetic energy. It's basically a shock wave. Of course, a shock wave will move an object. Still, doesn't a shock wave need a medium, some matter, through which to transmit -- such as earth, or an atmosphere? Again, if there's no atmosphere in space, how do you transmit a shock wave?
I'm vaguely certain that the rocket is comprised of mass, as is the fuel, and gas.
I do not doubt that space propulsion has been done, I just question whether they've been doing it using the primitive chemical combustion-based physics they've claimed to be using.
All that said, I see no reason that it would be impossible for them to be using technology not publicly known, either in place of, or (more likely if it is used) to augment what they already have.
Now I think it's time to focus on more pertinent matters, like economic shenanigans (yes, I said shenanigans), treaties and deals public and private that remove the rights of the people of the US and other nations abroad, and the consumption of cake and/or pie.