Why do people believe in conspiracy theories, or why does Tom exist...

[sgreger1]

sgreg- u cannot see the lander. You can see a spot. But we have shot up unmanmned vehicles, as well as the Soviets and maybe others. So, even if you could see that distance, you might see something. But seeing a little dot of maybe something does not equal proof. Neither does tracks in the sand, because the Soviets did land an umanned rover vehicle long ago.

It's just that we have videos of it, the lander is exactly where they said it was, we brought back rocks, PLUS we had the funding, the willpower, the knowhow and the technology required to do it, so I odn't see why we wouldn't have done it. I just don't think something of THAT magnitude can stay secret for 2 generations or more. I mean honestly, someone in some country would have noticed it, the russians would have siad something. They tracked the shuttle as it went there and as it came back. I just don't see any evidence that we didn't go. Some claims that the video was faked, and hey maybe it could have been, but I think there is just too much evidence pointing to that we went. It seems like pulling of this hoax would be more difficult than just landing on the moon.

[sgreger1]

There simply is no proof. It's belief. You can believe we went there, humans landed, or not. Or we went there, but the footage was faked because what was there is not what we have been told is there.

Tom, there is lots of proof. More proof perhaps than any other scientific discovery. You can call it belief, but we have solid evidence. Just because you refuse to accept that any of the evidence is real does not mean that the evidence doesn't exist.

[sgreger1]

Firstly, what is it about the thousands of photos, hours of film, hours of video, millions of pages of documentation, personal testimonies, hundreds of pounds of lunar rock and soil samples returned, surviving hardware, and far more besides does not constitute evidence? I am amazed consistently by the number of people willing to sweep all that under the (enormously large) rug. I mean, we can only prove the Apollo missions about as well as we can prove that World War II occurred and the Atlantic Ocean exists.

All 400,000 Americans who worked on Apollo must have been in on the conspiracy of silence, which was ever so much more effective than the attempt to keep the Watergate break in--known to only eight people--a secret. And we all know how very eager the USSR was to help the USA cheat.


FACT: We landed 12 astronauts on the moon.
We launched them in the largest rocket ever built,the Saturn 5,it was 363 feet high,as high as a 36 story building in front of thousands of people!It made the loudest sound ever made by a man made machine (except for a nuclear bomb)It had the explosive equivalent of a small nuclear bombwhich made it VERY dangerous to launch(so why would they risk it for a hoax)

Thousands and thousands of people,scientists,engineers,contractors would all have had to have been sworn to secrecy and not one has come forward to claim it was all a hoax.(because it really happened)

The very fact that 35 years later people would not believe it happened speaks to the tremendous feat it actually was.


On top of that, there was no real CGI in those days and they broadcasted the whole thing LIVE for the world to see. I mean, I don't know what else you would consider proof if none of these things count. We have hard evidence (rocks), video evidence, image evidence, first hand testimony evidence, thousands of scientists and engineers who were there evidince, then decades later we went back and took pictures of more pictures as evidence. I mean cummon, we gotta be reasonable here.

[tom502]

We have moon rocks that have been found on Earth. You may have been told they sent 12 astronauts to the moon, but it doesn't prove it. Anyone can fake this footage, and the footage is full of holes. The amount of perfect pictures is so large, it would take so much time to be taking them, than it took to do the actual missions. These are studio set pictures, the lighting shows multiple light sources, and some shots even show the set lights in the corners, and in the face masks. The Soviets were unable to monitor the actual trip to the moon, and once they were able to do so, the moon shots stopped. Even with our modern tech, we could not do it.

[tom502]

Oh, and it was not broadcast live. It went through a TV station, and was not even real time.

[devilock76]

I mean, I don't know what else you would consider proof if none of these things count.

A website that sells tin foil hats for $39.99 saying it is real. That I think he would buy, literally.

Ken

[devilock76]

We have moon rocks that have been found on Earth. You may have been told they sent 12 astronauts to the moon, but it doesn't prove it. Anyone can fake this footage, and the footage is full of holes. The amount of perfect pictures is so large, it would take so much time to be taking them, than it took to do the actual missions. These are studio set pictures, the lighting shows multiple light sources, and some shots even show the set lights in the corners, and in the face masks. The Soviets were unable to monitor the actual trip to the moon, and once they were able to do so, the moon shots stopped. Even with our modern tech, we could not do it.

And debunked and debunked and debunked and if it is so easy to fake why don't you do it and they stopped because we retired the Saturn 5 for the space shuttle which is not a vehicle designed to reach escape velocity without a booster rocket so it couldn't land and return we had no reason.

If you were told they found radionics devices on the moon then I am sure you would be buying this.

Ken

[sgreger1]

We have moon rocks that have been found on Earth. You may have been told they sent 12 astronauts to the moon, but it doesn't prove it. Anyone can fake this footage, and the footage is full of holes. The amount of perfect pictures is so large, it would take so much time to be taking them, than it took to do the actual missions. These are studio set pictures, the lighting shows multiple light sources, and some shots even show the set lights in the corners, and in the face masks. The Soviets were unable to monitor the actual trip to the moon, and once they were able to do so, the moon shots stopped. Even with our modern tech, we could not do it.

Tom, what on earth makes you think with modern tech we couldn't go to the moon. You do realize that it's not actually that difficult to do. It was difficult back then because we had to use slide rules and almost no computing power, but we still pulled it off in a few short years despite that.

Tom, moon rocks can be found on earth, but those can be clearly distringuished from rocks brought directly from the moon. Rocks found on earth are contaminated with things found on earth, moon rocks are not. Additionally, it wasn't like a few rocks, it was hundreds and hundreds of them. Even the russians, and every EVERY scientist, especially all the independent investigations done by non-government scientists all agree where they are from.


The light source thing is like many of the other so called "smoking guns", it is all based in the fact that people don't live on the moon and yet people seem to expect the moon to have the same properties as earth. The way light works there without an atmosphere is vastly different than how it is on earth. The flag waving was from when they dug it into the ground, not proof tha there was "wind" or anything like that.



I will give you one thing, even though I don't believe any of this, the video footage does have what "appear" to be some very questionable things, like the letter "c" carved clearly into the moonrock, and the reflection in the visor, but those all have decent explanations so it's no smoking gun.


Really, I don't see why there is so much pushback against this. It is one of the most well documented events in history. You are defying hundreds of thousands of people who built this project with their hands, astonauts who risked their life to fly to the moon (many of which died) etc. To make such an outrageous claim you would have to have equally outrageous evidence.


Tom, there is no evidence against it. Just a bunch of little things like "Hmm, the shadows look funny" etc. Same thing like the myth that a human couldn't pass through the radiation belt.

[sgreger1]

And the reason we don't go anymore is because there is no space race or communist threat. We waste our money elsewhere nowadays. If we had the will we could do it in the next 10 years, and I don't mean the moon, I mean mars. Russia and the english (and I think China) have been working to get a manned mission to mars by 2025, they'r already years into it's planning. Can't wait to hear people claim that didn't happen either.


If our government would invest some god damn money in science, I would be watching a reality show taped on mars right now instead of having this conversation about how space-flight works.

[tom502]

Maybe "some" of the footage is fake? But then why?

[sgreger1]

Maybe "some" of the footage is fake? But then why?

Look, I wasn't alive back then so I don't know how others feel. To me everything sho on film in the 60's looks fake lol. Really, i am good with high def stuff but at the resolution of the moon program it would be hard to tell as things kind of blur together and big details get lost in the lack of resolution.

That being said, if for some reason some of it were fake, it would be either for:

National security reasons, i.e. to somehow not let the russians see something
They were actually doing something else during the moon mission that was off-the record.

The audio really does make it seem like they were doing something else while they were there. Big gaps where no one talks, using code words. They seemed to be interested in one thing in particular at one point and this is why the UFO's onthe moon theories came about. They start acting ll sketchy saying "Santa Claus is real, We have confirmed we see snta claus", then it goes blank and they go into a conversation about seeing something. I don't know, I don't know their lingo and I don't know what they were or where not talking about so I can't judge.


Or perhaps they realized they couldn't handle the IT aspect of videotaping it and sending it from space, so perhaps they recreated it? That seems unlikely though, it would have been easier to just say that they couldn't do video.


Really I can see a lot of the basis for the moon hoax theory, mainly in the fact that the video has some discrepencies in it that even after hearing the explanation seem kind of suspect, but the fact we went to the moon just has faaaaar to much evidence to be derailed by some shit ina video.

[tom502]

[lxskllr]

LoL Tom :^D

[sgreger1]

To answer some fo your questions tom, such as why there were so many pictures, why the crosshairs apear to be behind objects, why you can't see stars, why the flag waves etc. These are all very reasonable answers.




1. Crosshairs appear to be behind objects.

• Overexposure causes white objects to bleed into the black areas on the film.

2. Crosshairs are sometimes misplaced or rotated.

• Popular versions of photos are sometimes cropped or rotated for aesthetic impact.

3. The quality of the photographs is implausibly high.

• There are many poor quality photographs taken by the Apollo astronauts. NASA chose to publish only the best examples.[91][92]
• The Apollo astronauts used high resolution Hasselblad 500 EL/M Data cameras with Carl Zeiss optics and a 70-mm film magazine.[93]

4. There are no stars in any of the photos; the Apollo 11 astronauts also claimed in a post-mission press conference to not remember seeing any stars.

• The astronauts were talking specifically about naked-eye observations of stars during the daytime. They regularly sighted stars through the spacecraft navigation optics while aligning their inertial reference platforms.

• The sun was shining. Cameras were set for daylight exposure, and could not detect the faint points of light.[94] Even the brightest stars are dim and difficult to see in the daytime on the Moon. Neil Armstrong said that he could not see stars on the daylight side of the Moon with his naked eyes.[95] Edwin Aldrin saw no stars from the Moon [96] Harrison Schmitt saw no stars from the Moon.[97] The astronauts' eyes were adapted to the brightly sunlit landscape around them so that they could not see the relatively faint stars. Camera settings can turn a well-lit background into ink-black when the foreground object is brightly lit, forcing the camera to increase shutter speed in order not to have the foreground light completely wash out the image. A demonstration of this effect is here. The effect is similar to not being able to see stars outside when in a brightly-lit room—the stars only become visible when the light is turned off. The astronauts could see stars with the naked eye only when they were in the shadow of the Moon. All of the landings were in daylight.[98]

• An ultraviolet telescope was taken to the lunar surface on Apollo 16 and operated in the shadow of the lunar module. (It is seen in the background of the pictures showing JohnYoung's jump salutes of the US flag.) It captured pictures of the earth and of many stars, some of which are dim in visible light but bright in the ultraviolet. These observations were later matched up with observations taken by orbiting ultraviolet telescopes. Furthermore, the positions of those stars with respect to the earth are correct for the time and location of the Apollo 16 photographs.

• Pictures of the solar corona that included the planet Mercury and some background stars were taken from lunar orbit by Apollo 15 Command Module Pilot Al Worden shortly before lunar sunrise and after lunar sunset.[99]

5. The color and angle of shadows and light are inconsistent.

• Shadows on the Moon are complicated by uneven ground, wide angle lens distortion, light reflected from the Earth, and lunar dust.[100] Shadows also display the properties of vanishing point perspective leading them to converge to a point on the horizon.
• This theory was demonstrated to be unsubstantiated on the MythBusters episode "NASA Moon Landing".

[sgreger1]

6. Identical backgrounds in photos which, according to their captions, were taken miles apart.

• Shots were not identical, just similar. Background objects were mountains many miles away. Without an atmosphere to obscure distant objects, it can be difficult to tell the relative distance and scale of lunar features.[101] One specific case is debunked in Who Mourns For Apollo? by Mike Bara.[102]

7. The number of photographs taken is implausibly high. Up to one photo per 50 seconds.[103]

• Simplified gear with fixed settings permitted two photographs a second. Many were taken immediately after each other as stereo pairs or panorama sequences. This calculation was based on a single astronaut on the surface, and does not take into account that there were two persons sharing the workload during the EVA.

8. The photos contain artifacts like the two seemingly matching 'C's on a rock and on the ground.

• The "C"-shaped image was from printing imperfections, not in the original film from the camera.[104][105]

9. A resident of Perth, Australia, with the pseudonym "Una Ronald", said she saw a soft drink bottle in the frame.

• No such newspaper reports or recordings have been verified. "Una Ronald"'s existence is authenticated by only one source. There are also flaws in the story, i.e. the emphatic statement that she had to "stay up late" is easily discounted by numerous witnesses in Australia who observed the event to occur in the middle of their daytime, since this event was an unusual compulsory viewing for school children in Australia.[106]

10. The book Moon Shot contains an obvious composite photograph of Alan Shepard hitting a golf ball on the Moon with another astronaut.

• It was used in lieu of the only existing real images, from the TV monitor, which the editors of the book apparently felt were too grainy to present in a book's picture section. The book publishers did not work for NASA.

11. There appear to be "hot spots" in some photographs that look like a huge spotlight was used at a close distance.

• Pits in Moon dust focus and reflect light in a manner similar to minuscule glass spheres used in the coating of street signs, or dew-drops on wet grass. This creates a glow around the photographer's own shadow when it appears in a photograph. (see Heiligenschein)
• If the photographer is standing in sunlight while photographing into shade, light reflected off his white spacesuit produces a similar effect to a spotlight.[107]
• Some widely-published Apollo photos were high contrast copies. Scans of the original transparencies are in general much more uniformly illuminated.

12. Footprints in the extraordinarily fine lunar dust, with no moisture or atmosphere or strong gravity, are unexpectedly well preserved, in the minds of some observers – as if made in wet sand.

• The moon dust has not been weathered like Earth sand and has sharp edges. These properties allow the moon dust particles to stick together and retain their shape in the vacuum environment of the moon. The astronauts described it as being like "talcum powder or wet sand".[102]
• This theory was demonstrated to be unsubstantiated on the MythBusters episode "NASA Moon Landing".