And why bother building a 20' plaster of paris moon model, with a camera track going around it, along with the massive crane they built with a photo-realistic moon crater background?

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality.html

Probably to rehearse landing? They didn't have computer simulators like today, to get a moving picture in a simulator window, you moved a camera along a model. Remember, they drilled and drilled and drilled, and when they got sick of drilling, they drilled some more.

Exactly, this is the reason. For simulator landings you really need to have it as realistic as possible. You don't get a second chance when doing the real landing.

To OP: The gifs at the original post are in all ways normal and don't show anything out of ordinary to me. The camera moves and all kinds of things keep getting in between the camera and the window, whats so weird about that? The transition between lights off to the lit cockpit, what should we be seeing there?

We are not looking at the entire earth, as we are led to believe. The video shows we are looking at just a small piece of the earth...its only round because the window is round.

This is incredible footage.

But the whole window is not filled with a view of Earth, or atleast that's how I see it. The Earth is moving in the window while the camera moves a bit, so it doesn't look like we would be seeing only a portion but the whole Earth.

Do you have a link to a better image quality video of this that would show the situation better?

Watch the video.

Besides, at the end when the astronaut walks in front of the window, it simply wouldn't work the way you describe. They say the camera is pressed right up against the window, so they are lying plain and simple right from the get go.

Who is saying the camera is pressed against the window in that scene? It is pressed against the window in the scene where you can see only the Earth (the whole Earth), but not in the one where they light the cockpit up.

Who is saying the camera is pressed against the window in that scene?

Buzz Aldrin.

Watch the video.

It is pressed against the window in the scene where you can see only the Earth (the whole Earth), but not in the one where they light the cockpit up.

Watch the 3rd gif. The camera is not zooming out, the lights are being turned back on in the shuttle.

It isn't your're right, and I'm not trying to say any different. Though it is pressed to the window in the part where the gif n.1 ends and you see the full Earth fading away.

It is in the same location in gif 1 as it is in gif 3. Look at the video segment if you don't believe me.

That's still meaningless as the view of Earth should be panning quickly as low earth orbits are fast. So this footage must be filmed from afar.

It is fully documented that the astronauts were still in low Earth orbit when filming this.

The proof is even in the third gif. When they turn on the light and move the window cut-out you can clearly see out the window and you don't see space, you see a small portion of the Earth that fully fills the window.

That fully fills the window? I don't see that, I see a small Earth in the top right corner and a big "lens flare" (I'm not a native English speaker, don't know the word for that kind of reflection or glare or something).

The view is not the clearest possible I can say that, but the brightest point is right where Earth was before flipping the light switch.

And as I wrote in my other reply just a minute ago, the biggest giveaway is the fact that the view of Earth stays the same for the duration of these clips. If it was a portion of Earth only and in LEO, the speed they should be moving to stay in orbit is so huge that the view would constantly change. Read the other reply for an example of what I mean.

I suppose you could be right, I don't know enough about LEO orbits to dispute it. I will look into it though. When I posted this, I was not just looking for people to agree, I also wanted to hear reasons why the footage could be wrong.

I'm not an expert on the matter either, but looking at clips from ISS filmed towards the Earth the view moves quite a bit.

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload

That's live view from ISS filmed towards the Earth. I don't know how wide that lens is, but that info should be available and thus should be easy to compare with the gifs you have.

Also the orbit speed should be roughly the same they would have had in the gifs because in orbit you can't go any slower or faster but just the right speed, otherwise you will either fall back to Earth or escape to space.

What you are looking at is the footage of how they created the video of Earth at a distance. What you are watching is just an outtake. Buzz Aldrin claimed to the American public during the voice over that they were seeing the Earth from a distance with the camera lens shoved up against the shuttle window.

They were actually in low Earth orbit and using the circular window and camera tricks to give the illusion of the Earth being far away.

That would indeed be interesting, but I still can't see it. Can you describe the camera tricks you suspect a little closer? If they were in LEO the Earth would cover most of your field of view and in the video they aren't even close to the window, so all that should be visible in that little window is a small portion of Earth. If it was filmed with a very wide angle lens being pressed to the window it would look smaller indeed, but the lens they are filming with isn't wide at all.

Edit: watched the videos over a few more times and it really looks like the Earth is moving as the camera moves and still shows the same image of Earth in there. If it was the window blocking most of the view and just making it look like we are looking at the full image of Earth, it would look totally different, the image would show a different portion of Earth while the camera moves. Why doesn't this happen?

The Earth is clearly smaller than the window is. Do you think they have a silhouette on the window and they move it around?

Do you think they have a silhouette on the window and they move it around?

Yes, this is clearly described in the video.

If they were in LEO the view would change quickly if what is described in the video really was taking place.

LEO orbit speeds are immense and you can't just stay put like it looks like in the video. It must be from a good distance.

What stays put? The "Earth". Don't you understand? There is no Earth at a distance staying put, there is only a circular window, a cut-out, and all the lights turned out in the shuttle.

This is very clear from watching the gifs.

Yes, the view of Earth stays the same during the duration of those clips. If it was filmed from LEO the view would be moving, you know when you look trough a binocular towards Earth from say an airplane, the view moves fast. LEO speeds are fast, look at satellites go in the night, the view would be constantly changing, but in your clips the cloud formations for example stay the same all the time.

Another example, film at the asphalt from a moving vehicle with the camera looking at the same direction all the time. Does the view change or stay the same? I'd say it changes and pretty fast. The very same will happen from LEO no matter what (unless they are in geostationary orbit but that's super unlikely)

It really doesn't help what silhouette you would have in the window, it will not prevent the background from moving if you are moving really fast.

Do you see what I mean?

Edit: what I meant with staying put is that the spacecraft would need to stay put relative to Earth (or move directly away from it) in order to replicate the view we see in the clips and in the video. You can't stay put like that in LEO, you must be constantly going forwards with a huge speed in order to not fall back to Earth. Orbits work like that.

Unique point, but in the early days of simulation they didn't even grace an artists interpretation of reality.

Why would a hyper-realistic simulation be considered before, well, simulation in general?

I wouldn't say "hyper-realistic", I'd say "As realistic as possible". I imagine those moonographers took great pride in their work.

Sick dodge skills bro.

Hows that a dodge? They went for "as realistic as possible". Maybe to you that seems "Hyper realistic". I dunno. They got better at it? You want the feeling during the actual event mimic the feeling during the rehearsal/drill.

Why would a hyper-realistic simulation be considered before, well, [visual] simulation in general?

Unanswered

You want the feeling during the actual event mimic the feeling during the rehearsal/drill.

I guess that's why early 90s flight simulators were such a failure... Except that they revolutionized military and private pilot training.

Your question makes no sense. And later computerized simulators were more versatile. I don't see why you are not getting this. They didn't have computer graphics in the late 60s... if they did, the would have used it.

The idea is that pilots have used simulators that would make a Kid who grew up with Virtual boy bleed from the eyes.

Hyper realism is a nice touch, but entirely unnecessary.

It's really pretty far from an important point, just found it laughable that you think visual realism is important for simulation.

You want the feeling during the actual event mimic the feeling during the rehearsal/drill.

But it wouldn't feel anything like it, they just made a visual mockup. May fool cameras, but not the astronauts senses.

Well between your incessant "hyper-realism" schtick and attributing motives to me that I don't have, I'm done.

Incessant? I just said it's far from an important point, hoping to drop it.

Motives? What are smoking man? I didn't say anything at all about you or your motives.

Defensive much?

" It's really pretty far from an important point, just found it laughable that you think visual realism is important for simulation."

I didn't think this, and you attributed it to me. Fuck off.

What does that have to do with your motives?

Anyhow you certainly did fool me into thinking you thought that, since you were the one who brought it up.

Probably to rehearse landing?

At the very least, you indicated you thought that NASA valued a visually realistic simulation. Well not a simulation, since it wouldn't be responsive:

to get a moving picture in a simulator window, you moved a camera along a model.

You are quite worked up over this, you okay?

Isn't this John Lear's website?

Not sure. My original link was bad so I just posted the first mirror I found.

Crazy, never heard of this before. Thanks for the link.

That site was gold, but it's hard to find online anymore. There used to be a bunch more done by the same guy - I'll try to find them if you want.

Edit: This page has more, plus links at the bottom: http://apolloreality2.atspace.co.uk/

Since the space race was a cold war objective, i find it very likely that any real footage they might have snapped did not meet propaganda standards (loud, clear and simple), so even if they did manage to haul our ass up there and back, they most likely inserted fakery still to better seal the deal in world public opinion. Ultimately i don't see this as a smoking gun they didn't go, but a smoking gun they at least partially faked their imagery.

The actual shot of the actual earth out the window behind the astronaut does indicate that they were not on the moon that time. Too far away from the low earth orbit they were actually in to be on the moon less than 10 hours later. It's just not possible with the tech they had.

I think the important point is that the two ideas can mutually co-exist as you have noted. Why not both go AND fake the footage? This possibility isn't kick around often enough.

Like I said in the post title, if (for arguments sake) we did go AND we faked the footage, then that raises about 1000 more questions that deserve thought.

Yes, that is a good point. Just extra propaganda and more refined "evidence" to back up their real evidence. I mean, that does make sense but it also seems like kind of a stretch.

People on this website always love to throw around Occam's Razor, so I guess the question would be "did they just fake everything or did they actually do the impossible and put a man on the moon and we are just seeing a couple things they faked"?

The footage they faked could have EASILY been captured had they actually went.

This is how I take Occam's Razor in this case

me too, but if you push it a step further for example moon shots could have just as easily been too dark for people to understand where the action is even taking place

It's an annoying tendency, Occam's Razor is most useful for phenomena observed in nature, not the complicated actions of intelligent humans.

I agree. Occam's Razor is overused and anything can be worded to make one answer seem "less complicated" than the other.

You´re making a mistake. The word may be over-used, but the principle not.

You are discussing whether or not it may be more difficult to represent that someone walked on the moon as opposed to in reality having sent someone there. The answer is simple. Outcomes excluded, it is certainly always easier to fake the appearance.

Is it easier to fake a road trip from NY to LA on video or actually make the trip? Is it easier to fake a car jumping the Grand Canyon, or make the jump in reality. Is it easier to fake a great historic battle, or actually have the battle again?

These examples have an underlying theme.

Yes I've Seen these before, i do believe we went to the moon at some stage but i think Apollo was maybe cold war propaganda or at least the videos were pre made in case something went wrong and they could broadcast there success anyway.

I feel like we are getting into a weird place. Its like "yeah they faked a bunch of stuff and covered up most of it so that it took years to find solid proof that they did actually fake footage, but I am sure everything else they said was true."

Given the more modern space program and it's real verifiable existence though, it is not an unreasonable stance to say that they may have lied about some things and not others that is how you conduct counter intelligence usually.

It nearly bankrupt the USSR in the process. YouTube MoonFaker.

[deleted]

How to tell when someone is losing an online debate: they attack grammar instead of the subject.

I think the biggest 'proof' that we landed on the moon was the fact that the USSR didn't deny it, and considering that at the time we were in a space race with them speaks volumes.

If the biggest proof of something is that our biggest enemy didn't call out the lie, then the "proof" is pretty thin.

Funny enough, these days there is a big controversy about Russia planning to release detailed info proving that 9/11 was an inside job. Do you really believe that the majority of people will believe them? Or will it be pawned off as "crazy Russian propaganda"?

And how do we know the same thing didn't happen last time? There wasn't even an internet back then.

We don't have to believe them. They can use is as propaganda for their own people.

russia doesnt have 911 info...

https://www.google.rs/?gws_rd=cr,ssl&ei=FIyEVI-uIsy0UZajgugE#q=russia+to+release+information+on+9%2F11

http://rt.com/politics/9-11-putin-seliger-investigation-toronto-355/

This is about as straight from the horses mouth as one can get.

Forgive me, I can't find any reliable source so this will have to do:

http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/coldWarCoOp.html

The bumpy U.S.-U.S.S.R. relationship in the years between 1957 and 1991 often was characterized by periods of mistrust and overt hostility (e.g., the U-2 incident, Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam War, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and President Ronald Reagan’s depiction of the Soviet Union as an “evil empire”). Periods of détente, in contrast, led to the Limited Test-Ban Treaty in 1963, the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty in 1972, and an emerging U.S.-Soviet rapprochement during 1985-1991. Throughout this political roller-coaster period of history, both countries increased areas of coop-eration, including space, as a symbol of warmer relations while cutting cooperation off when ties worsened.

These scientists likely didn't just hate or love the "opposition's" scientific community whenever papa government told them to; they were colleagues and associates, men who had more in common with each other than their respective countries of origin. Read the whole article for a decent perspective on the scope and duration of Soviet/American cooperation during the so-called "Cold War".

My favorite is the moon rock that Armstrong personally handed to a Dutch museum was proven to be petrified wood!. Bring this up in conversation and watch the believers do mental backflips to hold on to their long held beliefs.

Also bear in mind that the scientific community has no basis to claim a material blame from the moon (think double blind study to determine the origin) because we'd need a verified sample to test against.

They could claim with some confidence the material didn't come from earth, but even the dinosaurs know that going into outer space isn't the only way to acquire extra-terrestrial materials.

Sort of irrelevant as all moon rocks available for public scrutiny have been proved hoaxes.

The story points out the reasons that wouldn't be a moon rock and for some reason either the ambassador or an old retired politician lied.

This is amazing. Looks like this shot at least, was faked.

I've always been a believer. I've even been called a shill on this sub for defending the moon landing, but now I'm gonna research this further.

Its always amazed me that Neil Armstrong didn't give an interview, and always seems ashamed of his 'accomplishment'.

Yeah, if it's all true, then Armstrong is one selfish asshole.

The most recent thing about the moon landing is all the rocks that were collected are gone. Word is NASA was victim of a heist that targeted the moon rocks. Now ask yourself, who could pull that off? Talk about surveillance and security, NASA has it.

[deleted]

Relevant:http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/luna_apollomissions10.htm

Meh, I find the Kubrick parallels to be interesting. But they actually prove nothing.

That's why they're conspiracy theory, not conspiracy proof.

I think the question is, who in their right mind would believe ANYTHING the US government would say, without first getting all the information and fact checking first.

Especially when you consider this: The president that made a pledge that we landed on the moon was Kennedy - pretty obvious conspiracy shit there. The sitting president when the moon missions actually did happen was Nixon - he literally had to leave office for conspiring. The man in charge of the Apollo missions was Wehrner Von Braun - he was a Nazi brought to America under Operation Paperclip.

How can people look at that cluster fuck of dishonesty, corruption, and conspiracy and then call someone crazy if they have doubts about the moon landings?

Interesting.

It does actually appear that there is now enough scientific evidence, that completely disproves the claim that man has ever stepped on the moon.

The fucking US government is out of control and has been for decades.

Von Braun was in charge of the Saturn rocket, not the Apollo mission.

He said Wernher von Braun (March 23, 1912 – June 16, 1977) not Von Braun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun

Under NASA, he served as director of the newly formed Marshall Space Flight Center and as the chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the superbooster that propelled the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.[1] According to one NASA source, he is "without doubt, the greatest rocket scientist in history".[2] His crowning achievement was to lead the development of the Saturn V booster rocket that helped land the first men on the Moon in July 1969

Whats the official explanation for only allowing media to record the event by pointing their cameras at a giant projected image?

That is completely bizarre is it not?

good proof, to post this belief before would bring down wrath to the nth degree

edit: who said, if you're going to lie, make it a big one

yeah it's very suspect, especially with the non-nasa voice on the radio giving instructions.

Here are some more questions for ya:

1) How did the Apollo 13 crew survive in 38 degree weather for 3 days in a damp environment? Hypothermia is measured in minutes not days in those conditions. Add in the fact that they could only have 6 oz. of water a day and they must have been severely dehydrated which will also make hypothermia worse. Bullshit!

2) The astronauts of Apollo 11 claim they couldn't see stars on the surface of the moon. Bullshit! Ask any astrophysicist and they will say you would be able to see stars on the moons surface because there is no atmosphere.

3) Why is the Orion shuttle essentially doing tests that even the Apollo shuttle could accomplish 45 years ago. For instance they are testing to see if it can withstand the 4000 degree reentry heat, when the Apollo capsule could withstand 5000 degrees. Its Bullshit. Its so obvious that Orion is testing things NOW which we weren't able to accomplish in 1969. If Apollo had landed on the moon what we would be doing right now in our preparation to go to Mars would be building a base on the moon, not dicking around retesting the Apollo capsule.

1. Insulated, heated space suits, and yes, they were very sick and dehydrated when they returned.

2. There is a lot of sun light being reflected off the surface of the moon. The effect is similar to what causes snow blindness. Your pupils are going to constrict to allow for less light to enter the eye. NTM the reflective face shields they were wearing.

3. NASA has actually "forgotten" how to do a lot of what was done in the 60's. They aren't using the same technology, the same materials. Most of the people who did this shit back then are dead or senile.

Insulated, heated space suits, and yes, they were very sick and dehydrated when they returned.

Weren't wearing them.

There is a lot of sun light being reflected off the surface of the moon. The effect is similar to what causes snow blindness. Your pupils are going to constrict to allow for less light to enter the eye. NTM the reflective face shields they were wearing.

The surface of the moon is nowhere near as bright as snow. Look up their albedos.

NASA has actually "forgotten" how to do a lot of what was done in the 60's.

That is fucking ludicrous. Everyone is literally walking around with computers in their pockets more powerful than the computers used on the Apollo missions, yet you believe that the rest of the technology they have to re-figure out? That is just retarded.

None of your answers are even remotely plausible for someone that is actually thinking, which just confirms for me that there is something wrong with the picture.

Computational Astrophysicist here.

Seeing stars is more than just a function of the astronomical seeing due to atmospheric effects, there is also sky brightness and light pollution. While you'll also lose out on sky brightness, there is still the issue of light pollution.

With light pollution, you're going to get two issues; the albedo from the lunar surface and planetshine from the Earth. Both of those combined should be more than enough to push the limiting magnitude below -2.6 or so.

This is why my hopes of a spectacular display where dashed when I camped atop Freel Peak one night. Atmospheric seeing and sky brightness were excellent, but a full moon drove the limiting magnitude to around 4.

That's also why you get images like this above the atmosphere in orbit.

Pretty sure you can't see the stars when the moon is out because of Earth's atmosphere getting brightened. That's why the sky is not pitch black like it would be during no moon. There is no atmosphere on the moon.

It's not only because the atmosphere is getting brightened; that's only one component (sky glow) of what limits naked eye limiting magnitude. You are still able to have light pollution in a vacuum that would prevent you from seeing stars.

Did you look at that picture I linked at the end of my post?

BULLSHIT, you claim you are also a applied mathematician to try and give credibility to your argument(s), all your posts and literally shilling for the government

PROOF

HAHAHA

Also a structural engineer and a chemical scientist, you are quite the academic.

I'm not an structural engineer nor a chemical scientist.

But I do use applied math techniques to solve the constituent equations that are used to computationally model systems in astrophysics. I am a member of both SIAM and the APS.

PROOF

So yeah, if you have no idea how fields in academia are related to each other, I'm going to need you to be quiet.

Nice scrub of your post history.

I would ditch the account and start a fresh, you have been compromised.

What are you talking about?

I am talking about how full of bullshit you are, you are nothing more than a government apologist, why would you spend your time doing this if you were not paid?

Pathetic.

I am talking about how full of bullshit you are,

I back most everything I say up with sources and links. Obviously I don't show all my workings, but if you take issue with any specific claim I've made, I'm happy to hear it out.

you are nothing more than a government apologist

Nah, I have plenty of criticisms to level against our government, but they're grounded in things that actually do happen. We're never going to end gerrymandering or achieve campaign finance reform if half of us are running around saying "new analysis of WTC steel shows the government faked the moon landing with thermate charges!" (That is indeed something of a straw man caricature, but it's fun). So in that sense I'm something of a reality apologist.

why would you spend your time doing this if you were not paid?

Because science education is fun! And also very important. Why do you spend time arguing in favor of 9/11 and Apollo conspiracies if you're not being paid?

Here's an idea, why don't you put up information about real conspiracies that affect the lives and freedom of millions of people.

This shit you're posting is irrelevant and it's doing nothing but watering down the potency of this sub.

You don't think taxpayer dollars being dumped into fraud is a real issue? You don't think the world being lied to en masse is a real issue? You don't think children being taught complete and utter bullshit in schools is a real issue? You don't think people being actively encouraged to not think critically is a real issue?

Besides, I've heard varieties of your stupid argument before. Usually from debunkers that say things like "why not talk about real issues instead of wasting your time with conspiracies." Yours is the exact same argument.

The Apollo missions are very questionable. Stop backing away from it just because you think it weakens your credibility for "real conspiracies." Most people think your "real conspiracies" are bullshit too - you're nothing but a stupid conspiracy theorist to them so you might as well grow a backbone and look at every issue with the same critical eye.

I think harping on the Apollo missions is grasping at straws.

Today NASA's budget is something like .5% of the US spending budget.

That, compared to the ~20% spent on military and "defense", is nothing.

We are caught up in the largest cycle of banker fraud in recorded history.

The US has spent trillions upon trillions fighting illegal wars that favors big oil, and Israeli interests.

Our justice system is hopelessly corrupt and broken.

Our politicians are sold out to the highest bidders.

And you think it's a big deal to talk about Apollo?

You're being a tad bit of a hypocrite here - If you don't think Apollo is worth wasting your time thinking about then quit posting in this thread with your uninformed flimsy debunkeresque "explanations."

The Apollo lie isn't separate from all that corruption you mentioned. It is the same bundle of lying and manipulating the people about almost everything.

Yea, except the premise of this whole thread is about a few seconds of blurry footage that is somehow supposed to prove something.

Im not here to "debunk" anything. This all just pointless conjecture.

Yea, except the premise of this whole thread is about a few seconds of blurry footage that is somehow supposed to prove something.

When taken into the context of just blurry gifs, sure. But some of us see this as just one more piece of evidence yo go into the moon landing = space race propaganda, and that pile grows.

Im not here to "debunk" anything. This all just pointless conjecture.

This post sure looks like debunking to me...

I like this post. Sorry you don't but I like it

Oh yea, not like its the greatest achievement of mankind or anything.

I disagree and very much like this post. Just because you do to like it doesn't mean that he shouldn't post it.

Best Documentary in the subject? Apollo Zero

To me, this is the most simple explanation of why the moon landing was not faked.

http://youtu.be/sGXTF6bs1IU

Seen it - just a rant. He is saying shadows can diverge... therefore you should go outside and see it and believe him. He skips over some really good evidence that moon footage was faked.

Exactly. And this is one of the go-to videos that people post to "debunk" skeptics. Which is saying something as well. Evidence is NOT the rant of some guy who is basically saying "We went there because we were told we went there and I don't believe we could have faked it because I know everything that was possible at the time."

Its sad really. Some civilian claiming to be the final word on the capabilities of military and government technology for the world's largest superpower with an unlimited budget.

Literally, just some guy.

This is so cringe-inducing.

"I believe we could make brand new technology the world has never seen before that works perfectly on the very first try."

"Improving a camera is literally impossible."

For fucks sake...

Holy fucking shit /u/bamer78 did exactly this right here:

what's more likely, we invented the amazing aerospace technology and went to the moon, or we invented movie technology decades ahead of its time, and hid it for no reason other than to fake a moon landing.

10/10 cringed so hard I got a 6-pack. Literally mad.

Honestly, I have seen this link posted countless times. And I have actually sat through the whole thing and tried to take it as seriously as I could.

At the end of the day, this video is just a guy mocking anyone who doesn't believe the story that government and NASA gave us. The fact that he uses a particular tone, one that implies "And if you don't believe me (some guy) then you are an iiiiidiot" does not make him a valid representative of truth.

I would equally not believe a video of some guy talking and using the tone "If you don't believe in aliens you are an iiiiiidiot" and then using his own speculations to "prove" his point.

This video is literally just some guy talking. He acts like he is privy to the same information of top government officials and knows exactly what technology was around at the time.

tldr: His personal speculations are one giant assumption based on the incorrect declaration that he (some guy who was probably in college at the time) knows what the most powerful superpower in the world was capable of doing or not doing.

So what's more likely, we invented the amazing aerospace technology and went to the moon, or we invented movie technology decades ahead of its time, and hid it for no reason other than to fake a moon landing.

You are looking for a conspiracy where none exists. You used an ad hominem attack instead of refuting his points. Who had the technology to pull off such a perfect fake?

You would have us believe that during the '60s, NASA was just using the rockets and astronauts as a front to hide the fact that they were moving film and television technology decades ahead with the sole purpose of creating an elaborate ruse to win a space race that no one was actually running?

I have no axe to grind here. I mistakenly thought that you were an actual skeptic. It turns out you appear to be a zealot.

Also, everyone is so hung up on Apollo 11 as being this huge conspiracy. You know we went 5 more times. The last three times, we took a car. We have rocks from the moon. They left reflectors on the moon to shoot lasers at, in order to measure distance.

So, even when people got bored with the moon landings, and the last three were canceled, NASA was still grinding out fakes on Apollo 17, which no one was watching?

If you would like to refute my points, and the points brought up in the video, please enlighten us. If you just want to bag on me in an attempt to validate your own position without discussing the topics raised, then you have proven my point.

And haven't used that same aerospace technology to leave low earth orbit since? Makes perfect sense... /s

Except for the numerous satellites in high earth orbit and the countless probes that have been sent out all over the solar system....

Not once has a man, from any other nation, passed the Van Allen. Interesting they could do it so well back then, but never again after.

Inb4 global warming made space travel impossible for some reason.

Stanley Kubrick was more than apt for the job. Did you see 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)?

There are no moon rocks apparently. Mysteriously 'stolen'.

Reflectors can be easily done by probe.

I was a believer until this video, now I'm going to really start getting skeptical about this.

So what's more likely, we invented the amazing aerospace technology decades ahead of its time or we invented movie technology decades ahead of its time.

FTFY

Also, the reflectors don't prove man walked on moon. Early soviet landers placed reflectors up there.

So what you are left with is moon rocks.

I told you that I still believe we went. I am just analyzing this from an "ask questions instead of blindly believing" point of view.

Obviously, the aerospace technology was developed in its own time. We had space capsules as early as Gemini. The entire space race was won with slide rules. The USSR had space capsules too, we were not exclusive to that.

However, you cannot find any evidence to support that film and television technology, at that time, existed, anywhere in the world, such that a person or group could even create the hoax that you are trying to propose. One technology actually existed, one did not. You didn't fix anything for me.

This can be solved with a few simple questions.

If man never walked on the moon, where did we get the rocks?

If the rocks didn't come from the moon, where did we get them?

Final question. Cui bono? If it was NASA and the Feds who perpetrated this hoax, to what end? Apollo was canceled before it was finished. If what you propose is true, then we are looking at the most amazing failure of a hoax ever. If you want me to believe, based on 3 gifs, that NASA did all of this just to shoot themselves in the foot, you will have to do better than that.

This is a false equivalency, but the only thing more preposterous is the idea that you could destroy 3 buildings with 2 planes.

However, you cannot find any evidence to support that film and television technology, at that time, existed, anywhere in the world, such that a person or group could even create the hoax that you are trying to propose.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

If man never walked on the moon, where did we get the rocks?

Can't answer that, which is why I put in the proof category.

Cui bono? If it was NASA and the Feds who perpetrated this hoax, to what end?

This is a question we, as civilians, are in no position to answer or speculate on.

To bankrupt the USSR and stop the proles from taking about how they murdered Kennedy and US democracy in the process.

I can speculate: How about as a distraction from the Vietnam war?

which is why I put in the proof category.

Couple of things here:

• All publicly available moon rock specimens have been shown to be of terrestrial origin.

• Going to the moon isn't the only way to get extra-terrestrial materials (meteorite impacts, for example).

I'm also not really sure if any unmanned craft have brought back samples, meaning the apollo moon rocks could only be tested against other apollo moon rocks.

You cited 2001: A Space Odyssey as your proof of concept that this hoax was possible. I'm not even going to say anything else. That can just stand by itself.

You can't even speculate as to an alternative source for moon rocks, since that would be a critical piece of any true refutation of the moon landing.

Finally, without motive, you have no case. If you cannot even hazard a guess as to why NASA and the government would spend an obscene amount of money to produce a hoax that no one was really interested in, I'm not sure what purpose is served by denying the multiple landings on the moon.

You know, maybe I am wrong, but I have yet to hear you address the actual content of the gifs.

What is your explanation?

You can't even speculate as to an alternative source for moon rocks, since that would be a critical piece of any true refutation of the moon landing.

Speculation is not necessary. Just as the Russians placed their own laser retro-reflectors on the moon during the Lunokhod missions, the Russians also brought back moon samples during as part of their Luna Program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock

As I have said elsewhere on this thread, proving a lie is often easier than proving motive for that lie, but there are several possible motives. The most compelling one for me is that in the midst of the ideological and global hearts and minds battle that was the Cold War, the USA was panicking about the multiple successes of the Soviet space program (until Apollo, NASA was behind the USSR on every metric). The US moon landings changed the perception of that.

Kubrick's 2001 and Disney's Mary Poppins more than adequately demonstrate that these kind of special effects were indeed possible way earlier than 1969.

, then we are looking at the most amazing failure of a hoax ever.

YES.

You are assuming the guy in that video is being 100% honest. No telecine needed, b/c the moon "footage" was actually proJected on a giant screen for TV stations to film and re-broadcast. So there is no "original" footage, just what network TV stations "recorded" off a giant projection of the "live feed"

he fact that he uses a particular tone, one that implies "And if you don't believe me (some guy) then you are an iiiiidiot" does not make him a valid representative of truth.

I notice that you didn't make the same claim about the link above where the guy called anyone who doesn't agree that is was faked 'Pro-Apollo Nutters (PANs)'. Why is that?

about the link about where the guy called anyone who doesn't agree with him 'Pro-Apollo Nutters (PAMs)

Which link? Didn't even see what you are talking about.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2ojq43/for_over_30_years_i_fully_believed_we_went_to_the/cmnsvvu

You even replied and thanked him for the link. So I'm guessing you just looked at the pictures and liked what you saw without actually reading it?

Yes, I skimmed the link and looked at the pictures. Given that my brain actually works, I took the information presented and thought "Oh look, they built this giant apparatus and here are pictures of it. When I get a chance I should look more into it."

Ah, so for one link you overlooked the guy's insulting tone and examined the information presented, and for the other link you did the opposite. Got it.

Ah, so you completely sidestepped the issue being presented and decided not to respond to the gifs I posted, the content of this actual discussion, and went right for a random accusal of something unrelated in an attempt to attack my character. Got it.

Looks to me like they were shooting the earth through a window. When they change the exposure settings to show inside the capsule, the earth outside in bright light becomes over exposed. There's nothing there that anyone who's done a lot of photography or film/video wouldn't expect...

The window is a circle. Shooting a video with the camera so far back would give the illusion of the Earth being very far away, that is the entire point. That is what we are watching.

Whether or not we went to the moon is an argument that's maintained for the purpose of distraction. We did go to the moon, but the real question is why, and what did we really learn there?

I also agree with this line of thinking. That is why I said in my title that I still believe we went. The questions that these gifs raise for me is why we would make fake footage. Most likely because what we actually found up there was deemed "too much" for mass human consumption.

If this is a topic of interest to you, I'd highly recommend reading Dark Mission: The Secret History of Nasa. It addresses theses things with great detail and argument.

And here's some interesting info and perspectives on all of the freemason ritualism that went on during the landing http://www.texemarrs.com/032003/eagle_has_landed.htm

Info? He is talking in verry certain claims about things that he could't possibly know anything about and references known photoshopped-images as if they where true confirmed originals.

known photoshopped? elaborate please?

Couldn't possibly know anything about? How can you possibly make a claim like that? I've read plenty of credible info on the topics he's discussing, so even I know something about them. Nice try but the info is actually lacking from your post.

Astronaut Neil Armstrong carefully took out his Masonic apron and held it up for the cameras over his space suit as if to cover his genitals area-the power center, or dynamo, of Luciferian energy in Masonic ritual. Today, a photograph of Armstrong holding his occultic apron hangs on a wall at the House of the Temple, the sanctuary of the Scottish Rite, in Washington, D.C.

Next, brother Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, at the time a 32° Masonic initiate, planted on the moon's surface the real flag intended for honor, the flag the Apollo 11 had carried in its storage compartment, the flag with the Scottish Rite's emblem of deep and mysterious spirituality, the doubleheaded eagle.

Since non-members are not allowed into Masonic Temples it's impossible for Texe to know if there hangs a photo o Armstrong on the moon holding an "apron" with Masonic-symbols on. The photo in question is a well known fake. Also, there is the little detail that the camera was broadcasting to the whole world, do you seriously think no one would have noticed and remembered to this day? You don't think a copy of the broadcast showing Armstrong holding the "masonic-apron" and Aldrin planting a masonic flag on top of the American would have be available on youtube by know?

Yes, with a little searching you can find images of this photo at the Masonic Temple. So when you say it's "impossible for Texe to know" you're projecting your own false opinions as fact.

But then you say the photo, that you won't admit exists, is a "well known fake", which makes even less sense.

And about the camera broadcasting... So it broadcast every single second, of every angle of the lunar mission, live, back to public on Earth? Get real.

It's the people who are most wrong that argue their opinions most absolutely.

I'm done here. When you're ready to learn, the information can be found.

Whilst I believe that the lunar images are a hoax I have a really hard time trusting this footage.

I don't know why but something about it just doesn't seem right, I mean it was literally produced by NASA and they don't even have the original moon walk on file anywhere. They are so effective at scrubbing their own records that there is not any of the originals left from the first moon landing, how would this have survived?

My other concern is why go to so much effort to fake it, you wouldn't really need to have them in low earth orbit and it could all be faked with models and sets in a studio. It seems like a huge risk to have these astronauts whose lives you are so diligently protecting by not sending them on an impossible and dangerous mission and risk it all with the potential mess of take-off and re-entry.

They are so effective at scrubbing their own records that there is not any of the originals left from the first moon landing, how would this have survived?

Purely by accident. I mean, most liars usually get caught eventually. Something always seems to surface. Call it divine intervention.

My other concern is why go to so much effort to fake it, you wouldn't really need to have them in low earth orbit and it could all be faked with models and sets in a studio.

Maybe they put energy into doing both of those things. If they didn't go to the moon, then where did all the money go? So they certainly could fund multiple angles for which to fake these things.

Both valid points, I suppose it just boils down to being easier to fake entirely on earth than the sort of half real/half fake hoax that the Paper Moon footage implies.

Another possibility is that this is a straw man just waiting to be burned to discredit the lunar hoax theorists but of course it could very well be true. Something about it just wreaks of high level disinfo to me and I just can't shake it.

half true, its still useful to have low earth orbit technology, space stations and comms satellites.

most liars usually get caught eventually.

Wishful thinking.

Good liars don't get caught.

Even good liars get caught a lot. It seems like to get away scott-free one needs to be an extremely good liar, be very intelligent, AND have a great deal of luck.

It also depends on how big the crime was. If we actually faked all of the moon footage, that is a pretty big crime and would need a lot of time and energy to cover-up. Naturally, a couple things could slip through the net. Like this video footage.

If a single piece of irrefutable evidence against the moon landing were to surface, don't you think the enemies of the US would snatch it up and publicise it?

Keep in mind at the time the US was in the space race with the Soviet Union - Yet the Soviets didn't question the validity of the moon landing.

If you were an enemy of the US, wouldn't you take any opportunity you had to make the US look bad?

I believe that today's political landscape is starting to look like that old Cold War landscape.

That makes me confident that even if Russia did release evidence proving it was a hoax, it would be quickly dismissed as "Russian propaganda".

Also, we are not privy to entire reality, for all we know, aliens exist and all of the major superpowers know it. This would be a valid reason to both fake the moon landings AND have a team effort to make it look valid.

So what you're saying is you have no evidence behind your beliefs, but you believe them because they fit your personal ideas.

I'm not sorry, I prefer evidence to support my beliefs.

So what you're saying is you have no evidence behind your beliefs, but you believe them because they fit your personal ideas.

Which is exactly the same as saying "I believe we went to the Moon" and then using "If we didn't the Soviets would have said so" as a reason.

Except it's not.

But try harder next time, maybe you'll convince more to believe your bullshit.

It is though

Nay.

Riiiiight....

Our "enemies", huh? I leave you with this appropriate quote, relevant to the times both then and now:

"There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state, Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime."

-Arthur Jensen (Network)

enemy

partners in crime in keeping a status quo going.

not enemies.

Forgive me, I can't find any reliable source so this will have to do:

http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/coldWarCoOp.html

The bumpy U.S.-U.S.S.R. relationship in the years between 1957 and 1991 often was characterized by periods of mistrust and overt hostility (e.g., the U-2 incident, Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam War, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and President Ronald Reagan’s depiction of the Soviet Union as an “evil empire”). Periods of détente, in contrast, led to the Limited Test-Ban Treaty in 1963, the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty in 1972, and an emerging U.S.-Soviet rapprochement during 1985-1991. Throughout this political roller-coaster period of history, both countries increased areas of coop-eration, including space, as a symbol of warmer relations while cutting cooperation off when ties worsened.

These scientists likely didn't just hate or love the "opposition's" scientific community whenever papa government told them to; they were colleagues and associates, men who had more in common with each other than their respective countries of origin. Read the whole article for a decent perspective on the scope and duration of Soviet/American cooperation during the so-called "Cold War".

Russia is run by Zionist since the post Czar era. America, since when? Enemies? Come on.

HEY A SMART PERSON

Smart is asking questions. Not blindly holding on to mainstream beliefs and using excuses that only work under the assumption that we know everything about how the world works.

"The Russians never publicly contradicted us in a way that went viral. So that proves it!"

You had them in low earth orbit anyway and they had a super simple way to fake the footage so why not? More realistic than a model.

I agree but how do we know that they were in LEO? I agree if they were that it would be perfectly feasible but my point was that it would be less risky to have them safely on earth than to risk the launch and re-entry.

One of the most important reasons for staging the whole thing was to prevent the embarrassment of dead astronauts so it seems to stand to reason that they would avoid all the dangers they could.

Because they had to fool everybody - including mission control. Its easy to track whats going on until they are in space, then its game on!

Fair point, I should stress I don't necessarily disagree, it is more than possible that they sent them up and orbited them for a few days but unfortunately I do not see this footage as proof of that.

The way I see it is how can one claim that NASA has been producing fraudulent images and then use them as a source for an image? It results in a circular logic problem so as powerful as the footage is, personally I dismiss it.

The apollo missions were a propaganda piece that will not stand the test of time. Unlike other conspiracy theories, where all witnesses can be silenced and no one will ever know what actually happened, the moon landings make falsifiable claims about space travel and the moon.

When we finally do find a way for humans to survive past low earth orbit, we'll have proven that the apollo missions were a hoax. Until then, I guess we can all just keep watching Cosmos reruns and ticking off how long it's been since we were driving around electric cars on the moon (42 years now).

Yes, I agree. If we ever do actually find out that the moon missions were a hoax, enough time will have gone by so anyone responsible will be long gone and the world will have evolved to the point where people will just go "If I was alive back then, I would have known it was fake."

Just like their involvement killing Kennedy, then covering it up? Credibility is null.

Look at the setup of the Apollo capsule the film is shot out the window from the middle seat with the interior lights out, the occlusions are from the person sitting in the left seat.

Then why would the camera be so far back from the window? The point is that since the window is round, we would see a round ball with Earth features if the camera was set back and all the interior lights out.

as a photographer, if you are filming the day side of earth its going to get washed out by the sun if you are too close to the window. Personally, I get as far back from the window as possible to eliminate any glare or possible lens flare from the sun. Essentially, he's using the capsule as a lens hood for the camera.

They were in low-Earth orbit.

Essentially, he's using the capsule as a lens hood for the camera.

He's using a circular window as a fake mock-up of Earth at a distance. This may not be so clear from the gifs, but it is from the video.

This footage is probably fake. Not by NASA but by Russia trying to discredit the U.S. There is proof we were there. Pictures, footage, and plates that were left up there that you can bounce lasers off of.

Every single time. The reflectors.

Reflectors were left by the unmanned Russian missions. Reflectors do not prove, even remotely, that humans stepped foot on the moon.

So, I just watched the video (not a BBC documentary). The narrator is saying that (1) they blocked out the Sun so that they could shoot the moon from the other side of the spacecraft without the walls showing and (2) they used some sort of cutout to make the Earth look smaller and that's why it's not perfectly round. Also, (3) ""these conversations discussing their deceptions were believed to be private ... until now."

My interpretation of the video: (1) they didn't want reflections of anything off the window and (2) the Earth didn't look perfectly round because they weren't directly on the day side of the Earth. Similarly, the moon only looks perfectly round when it's a full moon.

(3) The conversations between Houston and Apollo were over an open radio transmission that anybody with the right equipment could tune in to listen. They were not private. They were also documented in the official transcripts.

Public Affairs Office Transcript PDF

Top of page 61/2 (PDF page 67):

SC    Okay. Very good. Well we shut out the sun coming in from the other windows into the spacecraft, so it's look through a - the number 1 window and there isn't any reflected light. Now they ought to be pretty good pictures.

...

Second paragraph of page 62/1 (PDF page 68):

CAPCOM    Roger, Neil. We just wanted a narrative such that we can - when we get the playback, we can sort of correlate what we're seeing. Thank you very much.

Apollo 11 Technical Air-to_ground Voice Transcription (PDF)

Page 51 (PDF page 53)

00 10 36 08    CDR

Okay. Very good. Well, we shut out the Sun coming in from the other windows into the spacecraft, so it's look through a - the number 1 window, and there isn't any reflected light now. So, it ought to be a pretty good picture.

...

Page 52 (PDF page 54):

00 10 42 04 CC

Roger, Neil. We just wanted a narrative such that we can - When we get the playback, we can sort of correlate what we're seeing. Thank you very much.

Assume for a second that these shots are faked. The video presents a possible reason for the fakery.

It does not logically follow that there were no moon landings because you can't imagine a different reason to fake some pictures.

I think this a fair point, but apart from a conspiracy to fake the moon landings, what purpose would these actions serve?

Liars are attempting to control the agenda, and this will work until their lie is discovered and disproved, at which point others are entitled to pretty much disbelieve everything the liars say.

I have posted the following link many times here, and I find it presents compelling analysis based on NASA's own published material, that the Apollo mission walkabouts were filmed in a giant studio on this planet and not on our moon (ie it supports the Kubrick theory).

http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

THIS is the best evidence based on scientific principle that there was some level of shenanigans going on with photos associated with the moon landings. Anyone who hasn't seen this info should take a serious look.

At the very least, (my favorite pet theory) the photos were doctored to mask something in the distance that mere humans aren't allowed to see. It would be have been quite possible with technology available back in the 60s to use real foreground imagery with faked backgrounds and optically print the two together (oldschool Photoshot layers). At most, the whole thing was staged, but as far as proof, it only proves mopery was going on behind the scenes.

But as to discovering the reason behind these alterations, well...

(Thanks for the link - I saw this before but lost it.)

I agree the parallax inconsistencies could be the result of post-production intervention rather than studio fakery. Perhaps the key is that we have evidence provided by NASA itself which unwittingly undermines NASA's own narrative.

Not even close. The stereoscopic analysis of all photographs proves rear projection tech was used. The number of errors is impossible given the fact they may have been there. None of the images are legit.

and Mythbusters proved it was studio work with their shadow diorama model.

Uh, link?

Their moon episode was unapologetically licking NASA butthole.

Like I said in the title, these shots alone do not prove (to me) that we didn't go to the moon. For all I know, we went into space and found something crazy so we manufactured the pictures to not alarm the public.

My only point is that where there is smoke, there is fire.

So why fake anything if there isn't anything to hide?

So why fake anything if there isn't anything to hide?

I agree, and your gifs show clear evidence of NASA fakery.

Often the most we can achieve is to demonstrate that something is a lie. Proving the motive for the lie can be much harder, even if it seems obvious.

Proving the motive for the lie can be much harder, even if it seems obvious.

Yes, this is a truth that way too many people seem to miss or overlook.

On the third, it's an easy explanation. It's a refection from the window when the interior lights came on. The "diffused work light" might be reflected panel lighting.

Have you ever tried taking a photo through a window and had the flash fuck it up?

What? I don't get what you are trying to say. You can see the diffused work light perfectly when the interior lights come back on.

Recluse is so clueless, he's basically "arguing" OP's main point because it us clearly obvious what is happening in these gifs but he is confused about what the "official lie" is :/

dam you guys sure are stupid.

So then, mr wizard, please explain why they had to simulate these "distant earth" shots? Just to have something do in space?

Yeah...now I remember why I avoid this sub

Be sure to let us know next time you avoid the sub, too!

Fucking lol'd

I would assume that that both lens were polarised. If so that would affect the light in the way that is presented. I think there's better evidence that can't be explained than this.

I can here expecting actual good conspiracy theories. This one is so dumb I lost a few brain cells.

So....you also have no answer to the gifs. Just a snarky comment. Got it.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought I was being given evidence not something someone wants to happen. I like a good conspiracy and everyone tries to claim this one and they all fall flat on their faces. You use a gif of something you DON'T KNOWWWW WHAT IT IS, and expect people to jump on board then yeah ima give a snarky comment.

Tldr: you give lack of effort convincing me and ill give less effort calling you an idiot. Just give me something good.

Interesting how you don't understand so you would rather dismiss it entirely instead of doing something simple like following the link that is right in front of you, attached to the post.

Interesting how you don't understand so you would rather dismiss it entirely instead of doing something simple like following the link that is right in front of you, attached to the post.

Putin! you are single-handedly pushing this discussion further towards lunacy.

There is nothing in those gifs that prove a thing

Or maybe you just don't understand what you are looking at, or don't want to understand.

There is a reflector that we put on the moon to measure it's distance from the earth. I'd say that argument is pretty much over.

This argument is often repeated, and absolutely specious. The Russian unmanned Lunokhod missions also left retro-reflectors on the moon. How was that possible?

It says a lot about the people here that you get downvoted for simply stating facts.

[deleted]

Here is a fact.

/done

Youre right. My bad.

Its all good man. Sometimes these discussions get heated and people get sarcastic (I am especially guilty of this).

In the end, we are all human and none of us know everything. Lord knows I have definitely said some dumb shit. It takes a big person to admit they are wrong though. Most people never do.

Honestly, if you want to blow your mind and others' then you should try the truth. I think moon landing conspiracy theorist can't actually fathom what really happened and how complex it was. so they go with easiest concept. Since it's uncomfortable to think of a person who is smarter than them they think that the smarter person must be lying.

I think moon landing conspiracy theorist can't actually fathom what really happened and how complex it was. so they go with easiest concept.

Are you kidding? How is "we went to the moon because we are so smart" more complex than an elaborate hoax that would represent the biggest conspiracy in the history of the humankind?

You are the one going with the easy concept. Your concept boils down to "I saw it on TV, so I know it happened".

The conspiracy theorist concept raises 1000's of very, very difficult questions.

You didn't answer how it was possible for an unmanned craft to leave retroreflectors.

I'm sure it was rhetorical anyways, but you missed the point that retroreflectors can get to the moon without humans, so they don't prove humans went to the moon.

Someone completely demolishes your idiotic argument about reflectors, and this all you can say? The cognitive dissonance must be burdensome.

Do some research. Start here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_programme

You're going to get your arse handed to you if you cannot formulate a coherent argument.

Dude, you're giving the gov way more credit than they deserve. They can barely pull off road construction. Do you think they could keep all those people quiet for 50 yrs? Not a single Snowden?! Come on!

Believing that the government is too incompetent to fool the public is a trick that governments have been playing for 1000's of years.

Then by your doctrine our world has already been f*cked far into the future and it started a thousand years ago. So why did they let you figure it out? And let you share their secrets? That doesn't make sense if they are so powerful.

No, by my doctrine, the concept of government has been around for 1000's of years. And even Sun Tsu (Art of War) understood that the biggest advantage you could have over your enemy is for them to underestimate you.

I didn't ask what the concept of a government was. Answer the questions I did ask, please.

What do you believe the government "let me figure out"?

Um, everything you have been proclaiming about this subject for what looks like the last 24 hrs. If you don't remember, its all written down. I want to know why you know something the rest of us sheeple don't. Why did they let you tell us?

I posted gifs representing parts of a segment of a documentary.

What about that is hard for you to understand?

I'll say it again. Why did they let you not only find out, but to go and share their secrets?

What do you think, that I stowed away on the shuttle and then personally shot this footage myself?

Are you on drugs? I saw a documentary and wanted to share a thought-provoking segment with a subreddit on an internet forum.

Well if you ever find anything credible, I'm totally interested. Looks like you have been wasting everyone's time, though.

Rubbish.

Can you please explain why? I would love to have someone debunk this. I honestly cannot think of any other explanation other than the people making the documentary hiring actors and actually faking this entire part. But that is pretty far-fetched.

Because you can just Google Telescope Apollo landing sites.

I am specifically asking about the gifs I posted. You can sidestep the question 1000 different ways.

your gifs prove nothing. I have provided actually proof, what more do you want.

Are you joking. My gifs are video evidence.

So I assume that you have nothing to say about them. Thats a real great way to scientifically evaluate an issue: "I have my evidence already and I will just ignore anything that comes out and challenges it".

the earth is much larger in low earth orbit than depicted in your "evidence." First gif one frame of what looks like lens flare from the reflection of the earth off the lens. Second gif doesn't prove diddly you have no idea what is blocking the view of the earth. Third gif looks like a orbital sunrise to me. so what are you trying to prove exactly?

Third gif looks like a orbital sunrise to me.

Oh my. I was already going to respond to your analysis of the first two. But I am glad i got to the third.

So basically what you are trying to tell me is that you didn't even watch them.

"I have my evidence already and I will just ignore anything that comes out and challenges it"

Yes, that is what you are doing. Since you didn't even watch the gifs.

Say whatever you want because it wont make your moot argument anymore relevant. Go find out the distance from the earth to the moon. You know, placement of a mirror on the moon sort of takes a human touch to do... Or getting the tons of moon rocks backs... or etc, etc, etc

You know, placement of a mirror on the moon sort of takes a human touch to do.

Nope. Wrong again. Here, actually learn something please.

Does not dismiss my point

Are you kidding? It destroys any point you are trying to make about reflectors. So you are left with moon rocks.

No all you are saying is robots could have done it. And does not dismiss people actually landing on he moon.

It dismisses a piece of "evidence" that millions of people constantly talk about, showing that they don't know what they are talking about.

Still waiting for the proof that the Apollo mirrors were left by robots, I'll keep waiting

You're kidding right.

I sent it to you a long time ago. Did you even open the link?

Here is the message.

Of course I did, and it goes on to talk about the photographic evidence of it on the surface of the moon. Did you even read your own source? You can't accept photo evidence of A(the robots) , then dismiss photo evidence of B(Apollo landings) when both photos are taken in a similar fashion. Just because A is a robot does not mean B is. This course of fallacies is not successful.

It is funny how there are photographs of that robots tracks on the moon, yet you dismiss all the photo evidence of the Apollo landing sites. You just destroyed your own argument. We are done here.

Just come clean. You didnt watch them before commenting, did you?

You didn't produce any proof at all you jus said u can google something. Get real.

It's impossible for an earth based telescope to see the landing sites in any sort of details.

Shit, lunar probes can't even take a discernible image.

Cognitive dissonance

Thank you

I didn't give it to you. You did that all to yourself. Thank yourself and your parents

Really? This is best you can do?

Okay. Yet another snarky comment that refuses to address the content of the gifs.

Perhap it's not snark. Maybe I faked it. The world will never know.

[deleted]

Like what? Traveling the world? Being a professional musician? Having an interest in other languages? Reading at least 50 books a year?

Exactly what do you do again?

[deleted]

[deleted]

You are a troll.

Uhuh

Not even close. The stereoscopic analysis of all photographs proves rear projection tech was used. The number of errors is impossible given the fact they may have been there. None of the images are legit.

The window is a circle. Shooting a video with the camera so far back would give the illusion of the Earth being very far away, that is the entire point. That is what we are watching.

No, by my doctrine, the concept of government has been around for 1000's of years. And even Sun Tsu (Art of War) understood that the biggest advantage you could have over your enemy is for them to underestimate you.

Not sure. My original link was bad so I just posted the first mirror I found.

Insulated, heated space suits, and yes, they were very sick and dehydrated when they returned.

Weren't wearing them.

There is a lot of sun light being reflected off the surface of the moon. The effect is similar to what causes snow blindness. Your pupils are going to constrict to allow for less light to enter the eye. NTM the reflective face shields they were wearing.

The surface of the moon is nowhere near as bright as snow. Look up their albedos.

NASA has actually "forgotten" how to do a lot of what was done in the 60's.

That is fucking ludicrous. Everyone is literally walking around with computers in their pockets more powerful than the computers used on the Apollo missions, yet you believe that the rest of the technology they have to re-figure out? That is just retarded.

None of your answers are even remotely plausible for someone that is actually thinking, which just confirms for me that there is something wrong with the picture.

You don't think taxpayer dollars being dumped into fraud is a real issue? You don't think the world being lied to en masse is a real issue? You don't think children being taught complete and utter bullshit in schools is a real issue? You don't think people being actively encouraged to not think critically is a real issue?

Besides, I've heard varieties of your stupid argument before. Usually from debunkers that say things like "why not talk about real issues instead of wasting your time with conspiracies." Yours is the exact same argument.

The Apollo missions are very questionable. Stop backing away from it just because you think it weakens your credibility for "real conspiracies." Most people think your "real conspiracies" are bullshit too - you're nothing but a stupid conspiracy theorist to them so you might as well grow a backbone and look at every issue with the same critical eye.

Uh, link?

Their moon episode was unapologetically licking NASA butthole.

I disagree and very much like this post. Just because you do to like it doesn't mean that he shouldn't post it.

Are you kidding? It destroys any point you are trying to make about reflectors. So you are left with moon rocks.

It dismisses a piece of "evidence" that millions of people constantly talk about, showing that they don't know what they are talking about.