We went to the moon! The evidence for this is overwhelming. Pull your head out of the sand.
I am all for Conspiracies, but this was has been debunked 1000's of times. Your photo evidence proves nothing.

The evidence is a joke. Here, let me save us both time:

• "We can shoot laser at reflectors!"

Yeah, and since reflectors were dropped by unmanned Soviet mission, this proves NOTHING about manned travel to the Moon.

• "Moon rocks! They brought them back guise!"

Moon rocks are not only found on the moon, they are all over Earth as well. Lunar meteorites that fall to Earth. So "moon rocks" prove NOTHING.

• "But 600 millions people watched it on TV!"

600 million people watched a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. TV stations literally had to point their cameras at a projector screen because NASA didn't allow them to use the live feed.

• "Some guy on Youtube told me that it was easier to go to the Moon than to fake going to the Moon! And that went viral so it must be true!"

This argument is so flawed it is laughable. Since the difficulty of going to moon is only a known variable in the case that we actually went, we can hardly use that logic to answer the question of whether we went or not. So that argument boils down to: "Since we went to the moon and know how easy it was, that proves that it was easier to go there than to fake going there". Holy shit, what????

The moon rocks that Armstrong and Aldrin presented to the Dutch government on their world tour were found to be fake. LOL!!

and most all of the others are nowhere to be found.

From the article:

discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at £308,000...

That fucking rock was worth more than a quarter million euro. I think I can venture a guess as to why the museum ended up with a fake...

Or why there aren't other rocks just laying about for any curious geek to put his paws on.

I wonder what the actual weight-cost of getting those back from the moon was in terms of launch weight vs. planetary return weight. I'd say £308,000 is probably close.

What about the myriad other scientific experiments that were performed on the moon by subsequent Apollo missions?

If NASA wanted to fake a successful moon landing, why did they bother to fake several more missions as well as the dramatic failure of the Apollo 13 misson?

NTM the Apollo 13 lander was deliberately crashed into the moon so that seismographic equipment left by previous missions could measure the resulting vibrations in the lunar body, all of which was transmitted to earth via radio communications equipment.

What about the fact that lunar terrain contours at the landing site perfectly match the measurements taken by the Japanese SELENE orbiter? Before the modern orbiting survey equipment, did the US possess detailed terrain maps that were accurate to the tens of meters that could have been used to design a backdrop that precisely matched the geographic features of the area?

What about the fact that Soviet radar installations were capable of monitoring the radio traffic to and from mission control, signals that could easily be triangulated and the exact positions of origin ascertained?

What about areal photographs of the landing sites being taken by SELENE, showing clearly the equipment and tire tracks left behind by the Apollo missions?

I'm not trying to be debunkery, but the best "evidence" for the moon landing being a hoax doesn't seem to be conclusive of anything.

What about the [1] myriad other scientific experiments that were performed on the moon by subsequent Apollo missions?

I don't understand, astronauts conducting experiments on the moon does not prove that they were really there. It just becomes a small lie meant to corroborate the much bigger one.

What about the fact that [2] lunar terrain contours at the landing site perfectly match the measurements taken by the Japanese SELENE orbiter?

If this can be trusted. In the case of the Apollo missions being faked, the implications of Russia not calling us out would imply that a powerful group of people run the world and borders are a fabrications. How hard would it be for Japan to fudge the data to make it corroborate with the moon terrain in the NASA photos. Its not like a double-blind test, they could have easily looked at the NASA photos beforehand and entered the data to make it match.

What about the fact that Soviet radar installations were capable of monitoring the radio traffic to and from mission control, signals that could easily be triangulated and the exact positions of origin ascertained?

Once again, I do not believe that Russia not calling us out is proof that we went to the moon. I do not think facts work like that. "Its true because nobody important said that it was a lie".

What about [3] areal photographs of the landing sites being taken by SELENE, showing clearly the equipment and tire tracks left behind by the Apollo missions?

Our definition of "clearly" is very different. I see blobs on a shitty photos. Nothing clear or definable at all. Also, certainly not bulletproof evidence of anything.

................

I am not trying to be a dick or anything, I am just concerned that all of the REAL, definitive data, photos, and proof has disappeared. Couple this anomaly with the fact that we haven't left LEO in human history, except for the Apollo missions. Now add all of the sketchiness and inconsistencies that even 10 minutes of research turn up.

It is really hard for me to 100% believe that it happened under those circumstances. And I definitely do not 100% believe it was faked either. Actually, I am probably like 40% sure it was fake and 60% sure that we went but are not being told the whole story.

What concerns me is the reaction that I get from the general public when the subject is brought up. It is not an intelligent reaction. It is not an educated reaction. It is a very emotional response and 90% of the "proof" that they parrot is not proof at all. Not REAL proof. Real proof doesn't require a thousand rationales mixed with blind nationalism and hatred for anyone who dares to question the event.

No offense intended here, but saying:

all of the REAL, definitive data, photos, and proof has disappeared.

Immediately after ignoring definitive proof offered to you because you believe in a shadow government with literally less proof than the Flat-earth theory doesn't help your argument.

I think OP is referring to the original video recordings, flight data records, schematics or basically any NASA documentation concerning the missions. NASA lost or deleted them. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56F5MK20090716

For Apollo 11, not for all of them. And flight data records, schematics, who says they are gone?

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56F5MK20090716

Didn't you read the article? NASA says it lost them. That is just not believable that such a historic record was so clumsily lost.

Man's greatest accomplishment - but we accidentally lost it. Hmm...

I'm done for this topic for today =)

This was only the Apollo 11 tapes, what is wrong with the Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 tapes and tellemetry data that you doubt them?

why did they bother to fake several more missions as well as the dramatic failure of the Apollo 13 misson?

To create mass patriotism and cause political distraction, when our country was literally murdering millions of innocent people in another country

but the best "evidence" for the moon landing being a hoax doesn't seem to be conclusive of anything

There is zero evidence that we were or are capable of going to the moon, it has all been "lost" or destroyed.

According to people in the space industry today, we are likely 100+ years away from being able to achieve what the Apollo program claimed to have done, it has almost been 50 years already and still no one has any idea how we got on the moon.

Mirrors aren't even required for laser ranging. Russia and MIT did exactly this roughly a decade prior to the staged Apollo fiction.

How would you go about using anything but a mirror to measure over that sort of distance? We might be able to do it now if we carefully analyzed the "echo" of billions of laser pulses to deal with that sort of signal/noise ratio (this is because lasers become scattered at these ranges, so light would have a much shorter round trip from some routes, and a much larger round trip from others not to mention ground scatter, hills, craters, etc.), but the computers then would have had a hard time with that sort of large scale data processing.

And how exactly does the moon light the earth at night? BY BEHAVING EXACTLY LIKE A MIRROR?

Lurn history. It wasn't required then, and it certainly isn't required now. It is by no means verifiable proof man set foot on the moon. If you believe it is, your levels of acceptable proof are so low, that you probably accept Hollywood magic as proof. Sad.

As I mentioned in the previous post, the problem isn't the ability to reflect, it's the signal-noise ratio. Look at any pictures of the lunar surface (event those taken from the ground). You'll notice the high levels of ground scatter, mountains, hills, differences in albedo. This wouldn't be a problem if the laser stayed together, but the beam diverges considerably over those ranges. Rather inaccurate observations were previously taken by Russian observers before the rangefinders were installed, but the inaccuracy of the measurements made many of the current measurements impossible. There is an incredible amount of evidence for the Apollo program at every step I have examined. I just can't nail down a set of goalposts in these arguments.

Moon rocks are not only found on the moon, they are all over Earth as well. Lunar meteorites that fall to Earth.[1] So "moon rocks" prove NOTHING.

There is a difference between lunar meteorites and moon rocks as the meteorites had to make it through Earth's atmosphere leaving a crust on the meteorite. How do you explain that the rocks collected by the Apollo missions don't have this crust?

Well since the only rocks that have ever been collected on the moon have been collected by NASA, I guess we have no way to know if what they are saying is true because we have no other "moon rocks directly from the moon" to compare with.

Incorrect, Russian landers also collected rocks that confirmed the findings.

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

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

The US and Russia are thick as thieves when it comes to the space program.

Asks for evidence -> evidence provided.

"Oh that could've been faked!"

Provides confirmation for said evidence.

"Oh well that's convenient, I'm sure they were in it together!"

You are hopeless.

You provided evidence of one small detail of one small aspect.

Let me break down what you presented:

"We know that the lunar rocks came from the moon because moon rocks from the moon are different from moon rocks from Earth. The US and Russia (the only countries ever in the position to collect moon-rocks) both agree that their rocks came from the moon."

So what exactly does this prove? Here is what it proves:

The US and Russia both have rocks from the Moon. And even if one believed that was true, since we already know that an unmanned Russian rover could collect moon-rocks, then we are still left without any proof that a man stepped foot on the moon.

And even if one believed that was true, since we already know that an unmanned Russian rover could collect moon-rocks, then we are still left without any proof that a man stepped foot on the moon.

Again, incorrect. The total amount of rocks collected by the Luna missions was approximately 326 grams. The amount collected by the Apollo missions totalled approximately 380.05 kilograms of rocks, far more than any unmanned rover could collect.

It seems you aren't even reading the links I'm providing.

There are also unique geological features on the moon rocks that aren't present in rocks on Earth which confirm that they are extra-terrestrial in origin. How does your theory account for these features?

There are also unique geological features on the moon rocks that aren't present in rocks on Earth which confirm that they are extra-terrestrial in origin.

Lunar rocks can be found on Earth.

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

Moon rocks on Earth come from three sources:

1) those collected by the US Apollo manned lunar landings from 1969 to 1972

2) samples returned by three Soviet Luna unmanned probes in the 1970s

3) and rocks that were ejected naturally from the lunar surface by cratering events and subsequently fell to Earth as lunar meteorites.

Dude, I don't know what to tell you, I already explained to you that lunar meteorites have features that make them different from collected lunar rocks as they had to travel through Earth's atmosphere which "burned" the outside of them.

On a broken or sawn face, all lunar meteorites look like some kinds of Earth rocks, even to an experienced lunar scientist. We can often tell that they came from space, however, because many lunar meteorites have fusion crusts (the olive-green crust on the photo above) from the melting of the exterior that occurs during their passage through Earth's atmosphere.

The Apollo and Luna rocks don't have this fusion crust.

I genuinely want to learn. I really do.

Can you give me the source of that quote?

On a broken or sawn face, all lunar meteorites look like some kinds of Earth rocks, even to an experienced lunar scientist.

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/

for that specific piece of information.

The total amount of rocks collected by the Luna missions was approximately 326 grams. The amount collected by the Apollo missions totalled approximately 380.05 kilograms of rocks, far more than any unmanned rover could collect.

So an unmanned rover collected 326 grams and you think an extra 60 grams is somehow "over the limit" and proves that humans did it?

There are also unique geological features on the moon rocks that aren't present in rocks on Earth which confirm that they are extra-terrestrial in origin. How does your theory account for these features?

I already told you. The only people in the position to tell us about the "unique geological features on the moon rocks that aren't present in rocks on Earth" are the same people who apparently collected them.

And what a great system because we cannot compare those moon rocks from the moon to an independent source that also has moon rocks from the moon. This is basic logic at this point.

And no, I do not believe the "Russians" are an independent source.

So an unmanned rover collected 326 grams and you think an extra 60 grams is somehow "over the limit" and proves that humans did it?

Once again, it seem you aren't even reading what people are writing:

326 grams were collected by the Luna missions. 380.05 kilograms (1 kilogram is 1000 grams) were collected by the Apollo missions. This is more than one thousand times the mass of the rocks collected on the Luna missions.

I already told you. The only people in the position to tell us about the "unique geological features on the moon rocks that aren't present in rocks on Earth" are the same people who apparently collected them.

Again, incorrect. You aren't reading the links being provided:

Some 10 kg (22 lb) of the Moon rocks have been used in hundreds of experiments performed by both NASA researchers and planetary scientists at research institutions unaffiliated with NASA. These experiments have confirmed the age and origin of the rocks as lunar, and were used to identify lunar meteorites collected later from Antarctica.

The rocks were actually used to confirm what we believed to be lunar meteorites.

So again, I ask, how did we bring back 380.05 kilograms of moon rocks if we didn't send people to the moon?

Furthermore, how did these moon rocks retrieved match the lunar meteorites on Earth, confirmed by independent parties to both be from the moon, if we never went there?

Yeah, I misread a word.

Listen, I am not even 50% sure that the Moon landing never happened. More like 35% or 40%.

I will now take into account what you wrote and do a little research into it.

You just used the worst four pieces of "evidence" there is that supports that we did go to the moon. If you actually do some research you'll find that these pictures have been debunked.

Those four pieces of evidence are what 90% of the people immediately spout off any time the Moon landing is brought into question.

So addressing the shittiest evidence is the best way to prove your point?

And once again, your whole post has already been debunked many times.

I have to disagree - there are some strong pieced of evidence to state that at least certain parts of the moon missions were faked. When an astronaut falls to his knees on the moon, and then is lifted up by wires, we have to scratch our heads. When the exact same background and rocks show up over and over in pictures of astronauts that were supposedly taken many miles apart, we have a problem. Etc. etc. etc.

You say you have strong evidence but then you talk about wires (which was debunked) and then the same backgrounds and rocks... what did you expect the moon to look like? You have no strong evidence at all.

Would you all stop using the goddamn word 'debunked'. It is a word with political emphasis. It does not belong in the scientific lexicon. So if you want to say that the wires theory was proven wrong... show me the proof bitch!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmSroT3RkmQ

Take that bitch! Sorry you can't ban words that you don't like. DEBUNKED!

That is your level of proof?

Hahaha

What's your level of proof? You're such a hypocrite. You have absolutely no proof at all and then you make fun of a video that debunks all your BS claims.

I think that is the point. None of us have proof. Both sides of the argument here are simply relying on evidence. For me though, the evidence points strongly in one direction. But then again, I am a conspiracy theorist.

None of us have proof.

I have strong evidence that can be PROVEN, you still haven't provided me with one piece of evidence that isn't BS.

http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/proof-we-landed-moon-dust

http://www.history.com/news/lighting-simulation-offers-more-proof-of-moon-landing

http://www.universetoday.com/111188/how-do-we-know-the-moon-landing-isnt-fake/

http://www.hasaan.com/2012/08/debunking-moon-conspiracy-theories.html

For me though, the evidence points strongly in one direction.

What evidence? Seriously.

I read through all of your links, and I'm not convinced of anything different. The Popular Science link was the worst. That magazine has lost all credibility with the whole debunking 9/11 article. There are some really serious technical questions about these events that never get answered.

So you ask for my proof? I don't have any. But I do find this documentary very informative:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weFpGufxq0I

Good old 'Astronauts Gone Wild'

I don't think you know what I'm talking about. The wire footage I am talking about was original NASA footage where an astronaut floated up to his feet. As for the moon backgrounds - I guess you don't have a clue there either - we are not talking similar backgrounds - we are talking identical. Look it up sometime and then you can use the word 'debunked' as much as you like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmSroT3RkmQ

You have no strong evidence at all. You thinking similar backgrounds proves we didn't land on the moon is the so silly. Link me to whatever you're talking about. And I'll be using the word debunked a lot because everything you show can be debunked.

Can you link to the debunking of the fallen over astronaut being pulled up by wires? I'd love to see the explanation for that.

Honestly, if they are the worst/shittiest four pieces of evidence that we traveled to the moon, then why are they what people always jump to whenever someone challenges the claim that we did make it to the moon?

Please, give me the best evidence.

That last argument is very strong evidence that we went to the moon. If you think that argument is laughable you have no thinking skills. There are so many facets to that argument. Its not just some random dude. It was a lifelong filmmaker with way more photography experience than you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs[1]

Dude you really need to watch this before you go spouting off about your "proof" we man landed the moon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE6OIPlQ3-8 It truly is a sad state of affairs when a nation needs to look towards discredited you tube videos to prove we did what would have been mans greatest achievement.

Thanks for making me aware of that video. Good stuff.

Dude, you obviously do not understand how logic works if you think this is a valid argument:

"Since we went to the moon and know how easy it was, that proves that it was easier to go there than to fake going there"

How about to watch the video and explain what is wrong with his explanation? You do not understated the definition of logic.

Since we went to the moon and know how easy it was, that proves that it was easier to go there than to fake going there

No one is saying this! It was not easy to go to the moon.

Jeez, how hard is this to understand.

The premise of the video is that it is easier to go to the moon than to fake going to the moon.

Since "going to the moon" is being questioned, you cannot make it a variable in a premise that is supposed to answer whether we went or not.

It is a logical fallacy of the highest order.

I am done. Your logic is messed up. You are perceiving my logic as false because you don't come from a logical standpoint.

I would argue that faking it would be WAAAAYYYYYY easier (and cheaper) than actually going (in a lander made of tin foil and tape)

No, you just don't get it. Think about it a little longer.

What is wrong with this statement:

"Going to the moon (which may or may not have been faked) was easier than faking the moon landing and that proves that we went to the moon."

the 'Moon' video came via Australia, likely from Woomera the British space launch site. they have some monstrous hangers there.

No matter what evidence and proof people can show that the moon landings were 100% real. There will always be an irrational ingrained belief that will disregard all tangible evidence to confirm their world view.

Dude you just saw evidence of nasa publishing a photo in 1969 that proves artificial lighting was used and then you were shown evidence that nasa has conspired to offer an alteration of that photo as the original and then you have the nerve to say this... "an irrational ingrained belief that will disregard all tangible evidence to confirm their world view". SMH

Look I know you have your beliefs, and that's fine, but I disagree with your conclusions.

To me, it's clear that there was no spotlight used in the shot. You would have been able to see the light source in the reflection on the space helmet visor.

Remember these were all encoded on film, if the reflection were to be "faked" then it would have to been faked at the time of the shot. Using old style practical film techniques, glass pane paintings, mattes, backdrop. Taking that into consideration, in a world without photoshop pro, this would have had to been the BEST special effect shot in the history of the world.

A contrast change in a photo however, that to me proves nothing.

EDIT: Not to mention the original conspiracy about a spot light. The guy is standing right next to the lander leg, covered in semi reflective gold foil. Which would act like a reflector.

If the photo is not conclusive evidence that there was artificial lighting involved then why is nasa trying to pass off an altered photo as the original? The whole thing stinks, but as long as you keep breathing through your mouth you won't smell a thing.

Is it conclusive evidence?

Look at the reflection in Buzz's visor. You see there is a second spotlight, one hilighting each astronaut. But why is there only one set of sharp shadows and not two that should come with two spotlights?

Enhancing a photo to make it look prettier does not mean it was faked. And like I said previously if it was filmed with artificial lighting you would see the lighting in the helmet visor reflection.

Passing off a photo that has been altered as an original is just par for the course for nasa. And without a doubt the picture looks worse for the change because the original was taken by professionals and has a very much desired dramatic effect that the altered photo does not.

I think the brightened photos look way better.

Can you honestly watch this video and still believe we ever went to the moon?

Oh absolutely.

Do you believe Star Trek is real as well? There is better video production in those films

lol okay....and?

Do you believe in the tooth fairy?

Nope, just science, facts and reality.

But you believe the moon landings were real? when the rest of the world knows it was a ll a political stunt and deception to incite mass patriotism due to our country murdering millions of innocent people abroad.

We simply do not have the technological ability today to get out of low earth orbit, NASA have even admitted this.

Stop deluding yourself and have a read of this http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

when the rest of the world knows it was a ll a political stunt and deception to incite mass patriotism due to our country murdering millions of innocent people abroad

Uhhh no, actually the moon landings are touted as one of the greatest moments in human history. Accepted as reality by every nation on Earth aside from North Korea.

We simply do not have the technological ability today to get out of low earth orbit, NASA have even admitted this

No they haven't ever said this. The fact that the world powers have sent satellites and rovers to distant planets proves that is not true.

Stop deluding yourself and have a read of this http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

Conquest of the moon was written in 1953, Von Braun wrote that 16 years before we went to the moon. He and hundreds of other scientists and engineers made the moon landings a reality by developing the technology needed to get there.

Your blog link is atrocious. Stop believing in blog spam.

no, actually the moon landings are touted as one of the greatest moments in human history

Not outside of America, did you know for instance, in Great Britain, the moon landings are not part of the educational curriculum, at all.

Did you also know that people studying in relevant fields in the US, are never taught anything about the moon landings, not a single thing.

The fact that the world powers have sent satellites and rovers to distant planets proves that is not true.

Not humans though, there is zero evidence that any human ever, has been beyond low earth orbit.

written in 1953, Von Braun wrote that 16 years before we went to the moon

and yet we do not have the technology today to get humans to the moon, experts believe we are still 100+ years away.

“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”

Not outside of America, did you know for instance, in Great Britain, the moon landings are not part of the educational curriculum, at all.

Proof, citation, source? The moon landings were broadcast by the BBC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_television_Apollo_11_coverage

Did you also know that people studying in relevant fields in the US, are never taught anything about the moon landings, not a single thing.

Proof, Citation, Source?

Because I see MIT teach about it, it's even on their website: http://apollo40.mit.edu/

Harvard too: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/02/from-v-2-rocket-to-moon-landing/

Not humans though, there is zero evidence that any human ever, has been beyond low earth orbit.

So you are contradicting your previous comment?

"We simply do not have the technological ability today to get out of low earth orbit, NASA have even admitted this."

and yet we do not have the technology today to get humans to the moon, experts believe we are still 100+ years away.

Your quote you cited is from the book that Von Braun wrote in 1953, in the 16 years time frame after that book, he and other scientists developed the technology to go to the moon.

You don't seem to be getting this.

And your experts believe we are 100+ years away is pure BS.

What's in that video that does not look real?

Seriously that looks legit to you? Believing the moon landings actually happened is the adult equivalent of believing in santa claus or the tooth fairy, if you want to delude yourself then that is fine by me, but just understand that you are deluded.

Explain this short movie

http://youtu.be/cOdzhQS_MMw

Who is panning the camera? Where is the time delay while communicating with Houston.

Thanks in advance.

Another interesting thing to think about.

If the video is to be trusted, then NASA had the tech to remotely control a video camera that was 239,000 miles away.

Yet we have no post-Apollo photos or videos of the Earth. Why can't they set up a similar rig in the window of one of their (outside of LEO) unmanned rockets?

Then we would have more evidence of what Earth looks like from outside of LEO.

Definitely. I've also wondered why they never point the camera on the ISS or space shuttles out towards space away from earth. Or why we can't see them "enter" space with a camera pointing out from the front of a rocket.

Haven't we got plenty of footage rockets entering space? Each of the latest missions have been recorded via multiple cameras rigged to the rockets.

Why never point the camera towards ISS? What do you mean?

No, I mean point it AWAY from earth and out to space. All we ever see is the earth supposedly from LEO.

Hubble images? There's not much point imaging black space with cameras that are not meant for it. But there are of course images from JAXA (edit: it might not have been you asking for non-Nasa pics, but anyways) that show the Moon and no Earth, so it kind of is away from Earth.

I don't know why this would matter to Moon landings being hoaxes.

There's not much point imaging black space with cameras that are not meant for it.

And why can't they just install a camera that is meant for it? Budget cuts? i think it would be interesting to see what the astronauts are seeing. They don't just stare down at earth full time do they?

I'm sure you can find footage from inside the Apollo flights where the camera is pointed at a window where only empty space is visible. Obviously because of high exposure it wouldn't show the stars.

Why they can't install such a camera? There is the Hubble that is meant for just that purpose.

Other than huge telescopes there's not much point having a camera pointed at stars. The view would be boring and waste bandwidth to broadcast it to Earth.

You're right they don't stare down at the Earth the whole time, but I guess the only time they do look from the windows is times when there is anything to see. It might be hard to see stars even from the window unless you flip down all the lights from the spacecraft and have the window at Sun side closed to allow your eyes to dark adapt properly.

What I would like to know is how this is relevant to the Moon landing hoax theory? :P

Or why we can't see them "enter" space with a camera pointing out from the front of a rocket.

Great point!

They used remote controlled cameras multiple times during the Moon EVA's. Every time you see two astronauts hopping and the camera moving it's the same system.

The few first times they messed up the leaving the Moon filming sequence due to latency to the remote camera and only got it right with the later flights. They can be found from Youtube.

Yet we have no post-Apollo photos or videos of the Earth.

We have weather satellites outside of LEO taking video 24/7 and you can find that on the Internet.

Photos from many lunar recent orbiters have provided pictures that show both the Moon and the Earth. Example: http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2008/02/20/20feb_orbitingthemoon_resources/hdtv2.jpg

Show me one photo of the Earth, alone in space, taken from outside LEO that is not a composite by NASA.

So the Moon isn't allowed to sit in the picture?

Weird, the Earth in that photo is an exact duplicate of the Earth from this photo: http://www.ianridpath.com/moon/moon16.htm

I never knew that clouds and everything on Earth stood completely still.

The images were taken just some minutes apart =)

The evidence for this is overwhelming.

When has this subreddit every let something like "evidence" derail its absolutely absurd conspiracy theories?

I'm glad you are is sure of yourself. How many more years are you going to wait until they get a man anywhere besides low earth orbit before you wake up? Another 40? Would you believe someone who claimed they flew a plane faster than the speed of sound if they no one ever surpassed 200mph for the next 60 years? Low-earth orbit = 200-400 miles above earth. Moon - 200,000 miles away. That is 1000x further than we have ever made it before. Did you know NASA claims they lost every single copy of every single original apollo 11 recording and all of the blueprints? http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/16/us-nasa-tapes-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716 That was 700 BOXES of priceless artifacts that they lost. Do you really believe this? These apollo moon missions only happened during Nixon's administration and have never been repeated. Lastly, read this analysis of the logistical impossibility of taking 5771 photos in 4800 minutes with gloves on and no viewfinder. Here is a study by analyst Jack White. He has studied this moon landing hoax more than anyone. Here, he puts it to the math test to show the impossibility of what NASA is asking us to believe. I visited several official NASA websites to find HOW MANY PHOTOS WERE TAKEN on the surface of the Moon. Amazingly, NASA AVOIDS THIS SUBJECT almost entirely. Two days of searching documents and text were fruitless. But Lunar Surface Journal, one of the sites, lists every photo with its file number. So I undertook to make an actual count of every photo taken by astronauts DURING EXTRA-VEHICULAR ACTIVITY (EVA), the time spent on the surface out of the LEM. Here is my actual count of EVA photos of the six missions: Apollo 11……….. 121 Apollo 12……….. 504 Apollo 14……….. 374 Apollo 15……….1021 Apollo 16……….1765 Apollo 17……….1986 So 12 astronauts while on the Moon’s surface took a TOTAL of 5771 exposures. That seemed excessively large to me, considering that their TIME on the lunar surface was limited, and the astronauts had MANY OTHER TASKS OTHER THAN PHOTOGRAPHY. So I returned to the Lunar Surface Journal to find how much TIME was available to do all the scientific tasks AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHY. Unlike the number of photos, this information is readily available: Apollo 11……..1 EVA …..2 hours, 31 minutes……(151 minutes) Apollo 12……..2 EVAs…..7 hours, 50 minutes……(470 minutes) Apollo 14……..2 EVAs…..9 hours, 25 minutes……(565 minutes) Apollo 15……..3 EVAs…18 hours, 30 minutes….(1110 minutes) Apollo 16……..3 EVAs…20 hours, 14 minutes….(1214 minutes) Apollo 17……..3 EVAs…22 hours, 04 minutes….(1324 minutes) Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes. Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos. Hmmmmm. That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon, REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That requires the taking of ONE PHOTO EVERY 50 SECONDS!) Let’s look at those other activities to see how much time should be deducted from available photo time: Apollo 11….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment, operate the TV camera (360 degree pan), establish contact with Earth (including ceremonial talk with President Nixon), unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, find/document/collect 47.7 pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to various locations, conclude experiments, return to LEM. Apollo 12….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment (spend time trying to fix faulty TV camera), establish contact with Earth, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations, inspect the unmanned Surveyor 3 which had landed on the Moon in April 1967 and retrieve Surveyor parts. Deploy ALSEP package. Find/document/collect 75.7 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. Apollo 14….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack and assemble hand cart to transport rocks, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations. Find/document/collect 94.4 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. Apollo 15….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 17 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions). Find/document/collect 169 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.) Apollo 16….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 16 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions, including new ultraviolet camera, operate the UV camera). Find/document/collect 208.3 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.) Apollo 17….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 30.5 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages. Find/document/collect 243.1 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.) Let’s arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time for these tasks and subtract from available photo time: Apollo 11…subtract 2 hours (120 mins), leaving 031 mins for taking photos Apollo 12…subtract 4 hours (240 mins), leaving 230 mins for taking photos Apollo 14…subtract 3 hours (180 mins), leaving 385 mins for taking photos Apollo 15…subtract 6 hours (360 mins), leaving 750 mins for taking photos Apollo 16…subtract 6 hours (360 mins), leaving 854 mins for taking photos Apollo 17…subtract 8 hours (480 mins), leaving 844 mins for taking photos So do the math: Apollo 11…..121 photos in 031 minutes……..3.90 photos per minute Apollo 12…..504 photos in 230 minutes……..2.19 photos per minute Apollo 14…..374 photos in 385 minutes……..0.97 photos per minute Apollo 15…1021 photos in 750 minutes……..1.36 photos per minute Apollo 16…1765 photos in 854 minutes …….2.06 photos per minute Apollo 17…1986 photos in 844 minutes …….2.35 photos per minute Or, to put it more simply: Apollo 11……..one photo every 15 seconds Apollo 12……..one photo every 27 seconds Apollo 14……..one photo every 62 seconds Apollo 15……..one photo every 44 seconds Apollo 16……..one photo every 29 seconds Apollo 17……..one photo every 26 seconds So you decide. Given all the facts, was it possible to take that many photos in so short a time? Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done. Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel. As much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites. Extra care had to be taken shooting some stereo pairs and panoramas. Each picture was taken without a viewfinder, using manual camera settings, with no automatic metering, while wearing a bulky spacesuit and stiff clumsy gloves. The agency wants the world to believe that 5771 photographs were taken in 4834 minutes! IF NOTHING BUT PHOTOGRAPHY HAD BEEN DONE, such a feat is clearly impossible…made even more so by all the documented activities of the astronauts. Imagine…1.19 photos every minute that men were on the Moon – that’s one picture every 50 SECONDS! The secret NASA tried to hide has been discovered: The quantity of photos purporting to record the Apollo lunar EVAs could not have been taken on the Moon in such an impossible time frame. So why do these photos exist? How did these photos get made? Did ANY men go to the Moon? Or was it truly the greatest hoax ever? © 2005 Jack White

Did china fake their lunar rover? Did we fake the mars rovers? Did we fake ALL the moon landings, and all the failed missions or fly by missions?

What about the ISS? Is that faked? Satellites?

If the U.S. government can and has faked landing on a celestial body, why not do it again on Mars? Wouldn't America love to have that as well?

We landed on the moon dude, they put metal plates there that you can shoot a laser at and have bounce back to earth.

As tantalizing as stanely cubrick making that kid wear an apollo 11 shirt in the shining is, the evidence that we landed on the moon is overwhelming and all the 'evidence' that it was faked that I've seen have been wrong, debunked, or super flimsy and ambiguous at best.

What about the ISS? Is that faked?

There's at least one person in this subreddit who steadfastly believes that the ISS is a fake, and that the several hundred peole who've actually visited it are liars.

not faked. it's real propaganda and "practice" for the future. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g

Putting stuff on the moon != putting men on the moon and bringing them back

edit: emotional downvote is non-sequitur, logic is truth

This is not how you argue something. We placed rovers on Mars, but we are currently unable to place a human on Mars - so you're missing the point. The ISS and any other MANNED mission EVER has stayed in low earth orbit except Apollo. The moon is 1000x further (roughly) and we did it in the 60s. The Apollo missions were an extreme outlier and we have not been even 1/4 that distance since. The reflectors could have been placed there by unmanned craft if need be. Either way - I am not sure if the whole thing was hoaxed, but I do feel certain parts of it are suspicious (like when the crew placed a fake image of the earth on the window to make it look like they were far from Earth - not sure if you have seen that).

They are studying now, how to get people through the Van Allen radiation belt. It seems they forgot how they did it in 1969. I stopped arguing about the moon landing a while back though . People hold on to this harder than even 9/11. It's a matter of pride.

Anyone who immediately jumps to the Van Allen belt as their argument against the moon landing shows how little actual research they've done. We never went through the belt. That's why we need the tech to go through it, because it makes trips much less technical. We went over it.

If I had a dime for every time someone's tried to use the belt argument against the moon landing, I'd be a very wealthy man.

Thank you for this.

Thank you for this.

Anyone who was alive when it happened has a real hard time believing they were duped on that level. Easier to bury your head in the sand.

I was alive and delivering newspapers, which I read every day.

I believed it.

Later though I went on a tour of Cape Canaveral and they actually took a whole tour bus full of us through their 'movie set' where they had everything needed to fake it, landing module , moon surface, rover, space suits and all.

That is what got me questioing the landings when i went, also they tried to get me to believe this bunch of tent poles and wrapping paper landed on the moon, without kicking up any dust at all, then like out of some cartoon, rocketed from the moon, blasting itself 60+ miles up to dock with the shuttle.

Truly unbelieable.

Look at Apollo 12 landing footage. They kicked up a hell of a huge amount of dust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFSa6vUix70

That looks real.

Believing the moon landings actually happened is the adult equivalent of believing in santa claus or the tooth fairy, seriously, if you want to delude yourself then that is fine by me, but just understand that you are deluded.

There is not much to discuss if your only argument is "that doesn't look real". A landing from orbit to the surface, looks real to me. In the other reply, a ascent stage going up in low gravity, how else should it look?

The only thing I can say to the argument that things don't look real is that what Nasa could not have faked during those times is the lunar scenery. They didn't have the capabilities to 3D map the Moon in such detail that they could have reproduced it 1:1 in a studio. Their studio scenery would be just a guess and it would be easily seen today it doesn't represent the reality. It is said that the landing & orbit footage had been faked using the small Moon model Nasa had, but people fail to understand how much bigger the real Moon is than the studio set and how much more detail there is to it.

There are other aspects of the footage that would be incredibly hard to reproduce in a studio set, like the gravity. In order to the astronauts, kicked sand & thrown objects to move like they did they should all be suspended mechanically or by some other means to lessen the apparent gravity. That's of course impossible or very hard at least. Nobody has come up with a theory how that could've been accomplished.

To your other reply, here's the ascent from two angles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZDdYD2hLUo

So what you're saying is because you don't understand orbital mechanics, it can't of happened. Got it.

It can not of happened in 1969 because according to the experts in the space industry today, nearly 50 years in the future, we are still 100+ years away from geting a human to walk on the moon.

Believing the moon landings actually happened is the adult equivalent of believing in santa claus or the tooth fairy, seriously.

Can I get some sources on any of this? Because all it is now is conjecture, as opposed to scientific fact.

For however many people "In the industry" that say the moon landings were fake, there is a factor of 10 more that agree it happened.

Lol. Be careful or Buzz Aldrin might come over and knock your teeth out!

Buzz is a little bitch. Out of all the astronauts, only his greedy little ass decided to sell anything he could get his hands on "from space".

What a tool. But hey, he represented the "All American meat-head" at the time when that was trendy, and they knew he wasn't that bright and likely had no moral fiber.

I let him know you called him a bitch. Be afraid.

and they knew he wasn't that bright and likely had no moral fiber.

Scholarship to MIT, PHD in astronautics, test pilot

all of these indicate he was anything but "not bright"

Aldrin turned down a full scholarship offer from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and went to the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York.

Once again, not that bright.

Choosing a military career, exceling in it, receiving a Doctor of Science for published material, all while being able to fall back on a full scholarship from one of the best universities in the world means someone is not that bright? Jeez all those chumps with PhDs from second rate universities must be imbeciles.

Or maybe Buzz was just the perfect follower and that is why he excelled in the particular areas he ended up.

The dude is going to rot in hell for lying to the world. Fuck Buzz.

it is kind of vignetting or dodge and burn you don't need photoshop to add some drama to a picture and make it look more appealing. it is possible to do that analogue in a darkroom. they wanted the image to pop. photos are seldom printed as they came out of the camera, there is always post processing going on.
the later approach on editing, with new opinions how documentary photos should look like, was to do less editing.

here is an article how much editing was going on in the darkroom before photosshop. http://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked-photographs-show-iconic-prints-edited-darkroom/

What point are you making? That the "original" photo was edited by NASA before being put in the newspapers? Is that what you are saying?

Because lets say that is true, it certainly could be.

So then, later, NASA re-edited the picture? So the second time they just happened to smooth out the lighting so that the entire lunar surface looks lit.

He's basically saying that it is normal to edit pictures to look more appealing and, that alone, is not evidence of a conspiracy.

Okay, lets say he is correct, this is what we are left with:

1) They edited the original photo before putting it into the newspapers

2) Then later they edited the edited photo to take away the unnatural lighting conditions that they themselves created by editing the first picture.

they didn't re-edit the publish "original photo". they still had the negatives and made a new print with less editing going on this time.

here is an example how you can edit a photo that it looks like the light was different and looks more appealing and less boring. http://www.dustylens.com/Wyoming-before-after-1.jpg ( i searched dodge and burn before after)

Yeah, except they have none of the originals.

the original video data tapes, that recorded the live-TV signals transferred to earth got lost in the archive somewhere.
but they went also with photo cameras (special build hasselblads) and film to the moon. never heard that these negatives got also lost?

edit to add question mark.

Along with the plans/designs for the original lander. All gone. Poof!

So I guess all of the lighting anomalies from the Apollo missions can be explained away! Clearly anything that doesn't make sense is because NASA just made a boo-boo while innocently editing their own photos to make them look "better". Gotcha.

And actually, I WOULD buy this excuse. If the photos alone were in question and everything else checked out. Except that is not the case at all, almost every aspect of the Apollo missions is full of holes and inconsistencies when put under the scrutiny of today's technology.

the lighting "anomalies" in this photo can be explained, yes.

They can be explained by saying "NASA edited the photo and that is why the lighting physics don't add up".

Of course, an easier explanation is that they used a spotlight.

as hilariously proved by Mythbusters and their exact recreation of the Lunar studio. they used a spotlight for their diorama, scaled version and placement as the original hanger version NASA used.

Of course all the actual film and negatives have been lost/destroyed so we'll never know :/

http://nerdist.com/still-think-the-moon-landings-were-faked-heres-more-proof-they-werent/

Your proof is an NVIDIA commercial. Good stuff.

Stanley Kubrick would know.

If Stanley Kubrick had been involved int he moon landing, he wouldn't have allowed for such a lighting blunder as OP claims.

Unless he did it intentionally.

Yeah, like The Shining... it's basically a documentary about the facade they put on.

haha, what a fallacious comment.

I don't see this spotlight effect you're talking about at all.

The picture was edited though, we can see that from the two versions on the NASA site.

I like the original one anyways, the shadows and lighting are nicer.

Yeah I can definitely see that it's been edited, but perhaps that's to account for older and or less precise methods of printing (in newspapers and magazines). What I don't see is what one would describe as a spotlight effect in the original. I, too, like the original better, it looks a lot more natural.

Yeah I'm not quire sure if I'd call it a spotlight, but you do see the light tends to drop off rather quickly behind him. This could just be reflections from the lander though.

I'm quite skeptical about NASA but I think I'd need to know more about this before I call it evidence of anything.

the light comes from behind him, the shadows of Buzz and all the objects scream that, yet Buzz is illuminated as if by a spotlight from the front also...

I agree.

In the first picture, the original:

Look at the ground, it appears as if Aldrin is standing in a circle of light that diminishes with distance.

In other words, look at the edges of the photo and the differences in darkness as you get closer to where Aldrin is standing.

That isn't what the photo is showing at all. If it was a spotlight shining on Aldrin then the shadows in the distance wouldn't line up with the rest of the shadows in the picture. Just look at the large rock in the background. See how it's shadow falls in line with Aldrin's (upper-right lightsource, slightly backlit, shaded on left and lower front, casting shadow towards the left and forground). That is the kind of effect you get from a huge lightsource a long ways away, not from a spotlight however many hundreds of meters your theory can concievably pretend is hoisted in the sky.

Furthermore, the first image looks like the edited one. It's likely that NASA touched it up before sending it to be published. As in NASA got back a sweet pic of Aldrin and touched it up so they could send a super cool photo for the papers to run for the first men on the moon.

The reason I say this is because the second photo that you claim is the edited one [the brighter one] can easily be edited into the first photo. More specifically, the entire photo can be edited wholesale (meaning the the area around Aldrin's feet and Aldrin himself are edited to the same scales and values as the rest of the image) and the result is extremely similar to the photo that you claim is the original.

Look at this version of the bright image that I edited in literally less than a minute. Looks pretty similar yeah? Could have used a little color correction, but the lighting is almost identical. The fact that I got this result by editing the entire image, rather playing only with the values in the background, is pretty indicative that your theory is flawed. Nobody brightened the background the match the foreground to remove the evidence the a spotlight was used, even if you ignore that the photo doesn't indicated a spotlight in either version.

No, the first image shows Aldrin literally standing in a circle of light that dissipates on the ground beneath him. If you cannot even admit that, then we really have no conversation.

Also, I edit photos for a living and have been doing it for many years.

That's nice. So do I. And I can clearly see that what you are talking about doesn't exist. You can get the exact same image as the "spotlight" by tweaking contrast and exposure on the brighter image. If you actually have any experience with photo-editing at all then this would be obvious to you. I mean this is really basic stuff here.

Look at the shadows. Look at the levels differences. What you claim just isn't true.

Yeah, you get a flat circle spotlight across the photo, not a spotlight that is in the exact perspective and angle of the ground.

Did you even look at the edit I posted? Minus a small color difference, its exactly the same. The tiny value difference between the foreground and backround is made larger as you increase contrast, making the backround look much darker than the foreground. Since you claim to edit photos for a living, you should have no problem recreating the exact same effect without needing to accomodate a fictional spotlight. You have also completely ignored the shadows I have mentioned, and as a photo-editor you should be keenly aware of the way light and shadow work.

These pictures are in no way whatsoever an indication of a studio photoshoot on earth.

Look at the photo: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2001-000013.jpg

The circle of light he is standing in is exactly what we would see if a hanging spotlight were used. The circle of light was not edited into the picture to make it look more dramatic. And the effects you are talking about would make a circle on the PHOTO, not on the GROUND of the photo.

Of course there wasnt a circle of light edited into the photo. And again, in no world does a spotlight above Aldrin create identical shadows on the rocks in the background. That isnt how light and shadow work.

And what im talking about doesnt create a circle on a photo. What im talking about increases the difference in values already present in an image. I dont believe you actually do have any knowledge if photo-editing at this point. Look at the photo I edited. By simply increasing contrast and pulling light levels down, you get a result that looks nearly identical to the photo that you claim shows a spotlight. Do it yourself (if you actually have the know-how) and you can see it for yourself.

Explain why the shadows tell us of a single and distant light source and why simple value adjustment produces exactly the effect you are seeing, and you might have an argument.

http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/proof-we-landed-moon-dust

( this) could only be the case if Apollo 16’s rover footage was filmed in a vacuum. A vacuum like you'd find on the lunar surface, for example, which couldn't exist on a sound stage on Earth. http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1281.html

Their chart is hilariously bad. The blue squares represent their "data", meaning their estimated height of the dust cloud in the video. Their "data" clearly shows the dust peaking after traveling about 2 meters, starting to fall back to earth/"moon" between 2.2 and 2.5 and with a probable landing of around 3 to 3.5 meters.

But they're "simulations" show that they think it actually falls back to earth/"moon" at over 4.5 meters.

Don't believe their own flawed data, believe their "simulations".

" "

Very interesting! However, Try this reverse image search.

What are you getting at? I'm not following what you're trying to say, but am interested.

I believe we went there

Some people believe we didn't. I like to believe that maybe the first one was faked, but ones after that... What's the point of faking those too? And what about the other countries that have been there?

And what about the other countries that have been there?

No non-American has ever claimed to have walked on the moon.

And what about the other countries that have been there

No human ever, has gone past low earth orbit, except for the guys in the Apollo program.

People in the space industry claim that we are atleast 100+ years from having the technology to get a man on the moon, it has been nearly 50 years already, factor this in with the fact there is literally no evidence we have ever been to the moon because it has all been "lost" or destroyed and the hundreds of other anomalies.

The story is unbelievable in this day and age, have a read of this

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

You claim to be an engineer, yet you are unable to wrap your mind around the moon landing?!

it's called science

Its the opposite of science.

Why do people keep obsessing over the moon landings? What, so they built a rocket capable of going to the moon and spent millions training people but faked the footage. Anyone with any sense at all will realise that the technology did not exist at the time to fake the footage - they recorded hours and no special effects at the time were even close to replecating what we saw.

I believe its like a pet-conspiracy, like hollow-Earth, Cosmic Federations, and other more "fringe" conspiracy theories. I have no problem with them posting here TBH

Why do people keep obsessing over the moon landings? What, so they built a rocket capable of going to the moon and spent millions training people but faked the footage.

Personally, I think that they went to the moon. If they did indeed fake the footage, it was probably because the original footage was shit, or damaged, or something along those lines.

Anyone with any sense at all will realise that the technology did not exist at the time

Yep, it's like getting money from investors and needing to show something/releasing the product no matter what.

Great although game related example is Assassins creed Unity, the game was incomplete and broken but had to be released.

In this case NASA probably decided not to risk a few people's lives with some unfinished and unrefined rocket and did in fact not shoot people into space. Nowadays though we can, let's just accept that.

Well if it was a fake, you'd assume that they'd only do one or two missions, not a half dozen.

Hey well, if one or two doesn't cut it for you to make progress in reality and half a dozen finally gets you to actually perform the end goal then you have to do what you have to do dude :P

No the technology did not exist to fake the footage - obviously they sent poeple to the moon successfully

You don't exactly need technology to fake an image, you can brighten an image with chemical reactions dude, the entire technology thing is just a convenience of nowadays, it's incomparable as wel.

I dont think theres any problem with the special effects. The only argument is that the camera technology was not there to film the slow motion.

However, the technology was commercially available in 1985, and military technology is generally said to be 15 years ahead, so I dont consider this a convincing argument at all.

I blasted off from the moon in my little pod, accelerated to 4000 miles an hour to attain orbit, docked with my buddy's ship, then hit the rockets again to launch myself back to earth. It's no big deal.

The Apollo program was pretty amazing. You can really see what they did with their slice of GDP. You really can't understand much about the engineering choices without understanding the rocket equation. The rocket equation determines the total ∆V of a craft (it's ability to change velocity) with the exhaust velocity, and the propellant-mass fraction. The math all checks out, and if you don't believe NASA's numbers, you can see that they're within an order of magnitude or so, if you do a bit of legwork to estimate them from other sources. The math to calculate ∆V isn't really that unaccessible if you've completed high school, and the orbital mechanics should be fairly easy to pick up to anyone whose taken a few calc classes and diffeq.

We are on our way houston

This conspiracy was started by NASA because the scientist were angry that the FBI confiscated everything from the Apollo moon landings. Pull your head out of your ass you can see the moon landing spot with a telescope and you can hit it with the laserbeam dumbass

you can see the moon landing spot with a telescope

No. This is absolutely false. Seriously stop spreading bullshit. Even the photos that NASA themselves present of the "landing spot" are just pixel blobs.

Even the photos that NASA themselves present of the "landing spot" are just pixel blobs.

Source or proof of this? Also don't even try/start if you're saying something like 'Just look at it, are you blind, can't you see it?!?!'.

Here you go. Honestly, these photos are a joke. Its 20 fucking 15.

If those are 2015's photo's than I find it hard to believe yea, those are unreliable images.

and you can hit it with the laserbeam dumbass

Means nothing, so once again you are proving how naive and uninformed the general public that defends the moon-landing is.

Unmanned Soviet robots brought reflectors to the moon. Do yourself a favor and actually research the topic.

My family was there. And I trust them a little more then sketchy information on YouTube. You go ahead and believe whatever you want though

Your family was on the moon?

For some reason whenever I talk about Air Force or McDonnell Douglas or Rockwell all the sudden my messages become completely garbled or otherwise glitch out.

Suffice to say I come from a background steeped in aerospace. Family gatherings included test pilots and rocket scientists and I believe them over any information that I would taken from the Internet. I think that's pretty reasonable

Your family was where?

McDonnell Douglas, Air Force and Nasa Huntsville. So at family gatherings there were at least three people separately involved with the Apollo missions. I'm not saying they couldn't be lying, anything is possible. But in this case it was such a point of pride for each one of them they still had patches and mission coins and tons of souvenirs, photos and autographs of people like LBJ and Von Braun. If it was faked--- it didn't have to be. From the people who worked on the actual physical craft that landed on the surface to the people who developed the telemetry systems in the Air Force to rocket scientists at Huntsville - I can say personally I'm convinced we went to the moon. And I maintain that NASA started the rumor in the attempt to force the government's hand because the FBI confiscated most of the mission critical data and classified it leaving some people to start over from square one

They wouldn't have to be lying. At all. NASA was completely compartmentalized, you should ask them about it.

You do know multiple countries are planning moon bases right Op? If we're planning moon bases.........

50 years later.

Lmao. K we faked it back then only to not land on the moon. But actively planning military moonbases and or hotels on the moon. Makes complete sense.

Yeah...with 50 years advancement of technology.

I think we did go to the moon (however I have suspicions Apollo 11 was faked), but your argument that because we are planning a moon base now is proof man walked there 50 years ago makes absolutely no sense.

I think we did go to the moon (however I have suspicions Apollo 11 was faked)

They used the ecact same technology, this bundle of tent poles was used every time, the design never changed

You do know multiple countries are planning moon bases right

Yeah and do you know the time frame the experts in this field have said when we might be capable to achieve this?

The answer is at least 100+ years

Can't they just reuse the technology employed during the successful moon landings? Or did they lose the blueprints?

"Lost it all"

well then.... no conspiracy here folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is a thing to consider.

Printing has advanced a lot since the late 60s. Color printing in newspapers was super rare back then; things were usually reproduced as really low-res (by modern standards) halftones. Then printed with smeary inks, on shitty paper. Dark areas would close up and lose contrast, bright areas would blow out, it was really just generally kind of terrible reproduction. It was not uncommon for newspapers to edit their photos to compensate for this - burning and dodging in the darkroom, pulling out an airbrush to blur out superfluous details to make the subject pop, etc.

Is it that much of a stretch to imagine that this "spotlit" photo was edited by NASA with the intent of looking better after passing through this shitty reproduction? Load these both into Photoshop and convert them to B&W as, oh, an 85lpi halftone screen; which one turns into a washed-out mess?

The whole US government has been rotten to the core for well over 70 years. Why is it so difficult to believe that this same rotten government would lie to it's people. Do you really feel like NASA is somehow separated from all of the corruption?

Please enough with the moon landing hoax bullshit. Why don't you waist time on trying to prove fairies are real.

It's 2015 and we still have ingrained science denial rampant among the ill informed blog community.

We went to the moon, it's okay. Just because a photo was brightened does not mean it was faked.

We all know you already made up your mind, you will never believe we went to the moon.

I disagree with your assessments, and am a firm believer that NASA is a legitimate agency and the moon landings were real.

Just because a photo was brightened does not mean it was faked.

I'm not a disbeliever but that must be the most retarded argument I've read so far. Might as well say 'Just because a photo was taken does not mean it was real', get smarter dude..

How is that a retarded argument? I can take a dark photo and make it brighter with processing, doesn't mean the original photo is fake.

It's the way you phrase your statement dude, that's why I said something like 'I could have a photo but that doesn't mean it's real or unedited' how can you not understand the retardation in that?

What? The entire point of this thread is to point out the original photo is not faked and was not taken with an artificial spot light.

The OP entire argument is that the photo was taken with a spot light meaning to him that it was faked and not taken on the moon.

He came to that conclusion because NASA later brightened the photo years later, meaning to OP they were trying to hide a spot light source.

It doesn't even matter, arguing with science denial types is just silly.

Yes NASA is a legitement front agency for the elites space program. I am curious in the classified space program though. The one which outmatched the Manhattan Project in secrecy.

NASA is a public space program. The classified space program is Military in nature. Both are real.

We went to the moon. We didn't go back reasons beyond the strange

Have you taken a look at the reflection that Buzz's helmet visor shows? It looks like there is two spotlights, one highlighting each of the astronauts plus the flag. Odd there is still only one set of sharp non-perspective-messing shadows (= collimated light), instead of two as there certainly looks to be two highlighted areas.

For those who believe we went to the moon, take a look at this short movie of Apollo 17.

http://youtu.be/cOdzhQS_MMw

How do explain the panning of the camera? Remote control via Houston? Hmmm.

What about the fact that the astronauts are communicating with Houston with no appreciable time delay even though they are 287,000 miles away? We can't even do that with a newscast from the other side of the world. Is this believable?

And lastly, why haven't we been back since the amount of fuel is almost the same as LEO and we already have the technology. Doesn't that disturb you? Over a hundred space shuttle missions but no return to the moon. Another hmmm.

It was preprogrammed and on the LRV, IIRC. It's pretty simple physics to work out. I had a problem about a camera tracking a rocket launch on my calc final lol.

No it wasn't. They claimed it was remote control via Houston. You also ignored the lack of delay between communications back and forth to Houston.

You're right on the first point. Further research shows that they failed to track the vehicle on the first two tries. It's not impossible to compensate somewhat for the signal delay. I would assume that the man with the lever had a good idea of what the delay was.

Yes and with no visual feedback to boot! Also, there is no audio delay between Houston and the astronauts. Impossible to explain.

Most audio records are edited down. It's also easy to overestimate the latency. 1.28 seconds is noticeable, annoying, but not impossible to deal with.

You are really really amazing. This is uncut footage. There was no "editing down". Plus, did you see that goofy lift-off that was bad B-movie grade?

I am sincerely amazed you can watch this and not come to the obvious conclusion that this is all complete horseshit.

What made it b grade? The hop as it lifted off? It makes a lot of sense as the combustion cycle had not yet stabilized, and explosive bolts held the LM together, and some pressure (compressed He?) was used to pump the propellants out, and the RCS was likely used as ullage motors to insure that the engine got fed correctly. It seems awfully crazy that some apparent discrepancy, not apparent in the original recordings would have to have actually been there, not just part of the editing of various documentaries, and that the original recordings are fake. Literally the opposite of what the data suggest.

So you are going to respond with apollo 11. This is apollo 17 and the silly sparks with no flame or smoke is classic low budget special effects. Plus the panning of the camera up keeping the module focused and centered by remote control is just hilarious.

You can't see it? Or you won't allow yourself to admit it. Your choice but it can't be more obvious than this.

I really don't know what you're talking about. What would possibly cause lasting smoke in a vacuum? The exhaust chemistry wouldn't, and any smoke would diffuse incredibly quickly. The sparks are rather obviously from frangible bolts, or the ablative nozzle. What did you expect to see? Billowing clouds like LOX-H2 exhaust at 1 ATM at 70°F? Black smoke like RP1-LOX? Is your argument that it doesn't look enough like a movie, so it must be fake?

No it looks too much like a movie. The framing, focus and panning just didn't occur remotely from Houston.

We haven't been back in 40+ years because we never went and we still lack the technology. They have said so themselves.

Saturn V rocket works better than any previous or later rocket. So let's scrap it and lose the plans.

I really can't believe you don't see it. The big picture is so obvious and you are burying yourself in minutiae and have missed it.

This really doesn't seem in anyway rational. Regarding the 2nd and 3rd points: Politically, we couldn't pay for larger missions. It doesn't work better than any previous or later rocket; it fills a long-neglected niche.

It is not 1.28 seconds. That is one way. It is double that and there is no way I believe this.

You're right about the roundtrip latency, as evidenced by the >2.6 second latency in the original recordings.

And yet the have a conversation with no delay. Impossible. And not edited.

Skip into the video (the part where they're actually conversing (CM/LM to ground))

Those four pieces of evidence are what 90% of the people immediately spout off any time the Moon landing is brought into question.

What about the ISS? Is that faked?

There's at least one person in this subreddit who steadfastly believes that the ISS is a fake, and that the several hundred peole who've actually visited it are liars.

Dude you just saw evidence of nasa publishing a photo in 1969 that proves artificial lighting was used and then you were shown evidence that nasa has conspired to offer an alteration of that photo as the original and then you have the nerve to say this... "an irrational ingrained belief that will disregard all tangible evidence to confirm their world view". SMH

Putting stuff on the moon != putting men on the moon and bringing them back

edit: emotional downvote is non-sequitur, logic is truth

50 years later.

If Stanley Kubrick had been involved int he moon landing, he wouldn't have allowed for such a lighting blunder as OP claims.

Your family was on the moon?

This is not how you argue something. We placed rovers on Mars, but we are currently unable to place a human on Mars - so you're missing the point. The ISS and any other MANNED mission EVER has stayed in low earth orbit except Apollo. The moon is 1000x further (roughly) and we did it in the 60s. The Apollo missions were an extreme outlier and we have not been even 1/4 that distance since. The reflectors could have been placed there by unmanned craft if need be. Either way - I am not sure if the whole thing was hoaxed, but I do feel certain parts of it are suspicious (like when the crew placed a fake image of the earth on the window to make it look like they were far from Earth - not sure if you have seen that).

Your family was where?

That is your level of proof?

Hahaha

Can you honestly watch this video and still believe we ever went to the moon?

You do know multiple countries are planning moon bases right

Yeah and do you know the time frame the experts in this field have said when we might be capable to achieve this?

The answer is at least 100+ years

Well since the only rocks that have ever been collected on the moon have been collected by NASA, I guess we have no way to know if what they are saying is true because we have no other "moon rocks directly from the moon" to compare with.

Another interesting thing to think about.

If the video is to be trusted, then NASA had the tech to remotely control a video camera that was 239,000 miles away.

Yet we have no post-Apollo photos or videos of the Earth. Why can't they set up a similar rig in the window of one of their (outside of LEO) unmanned rockets?

Then we would have more evidence of what Earth looks like from outside of LEO.

Yet we have no post-Apollo photos or videos of the Earth.

I genuinely want to learn. I really do.

Can you give me the source of that quote?

It's the way you phrase your statement dude, that's why I said something like 'I could have a photo but that doesn't mean it's real or unedited' how can you not understand the retardation in that?