I am not even a conspiracy person...

Well ya are now =)

I'm not saying you're the problem, but the football-mentality is one of many problems.

Defining oneself as "not a conspiracy person" might cause one to filter information based not on its validity but on its implications: ex. "If that was true, Bush would have had to be in on it, and I refuse to believe that."

It's an unfortunate source of error and cognitive bias.

I don't think one has to be a professional investigator of sorts to understand, that letting prejudice and the interpretation of the meaning in terms of guilt and wider implcations of the evidence influence the analysis of that evidence, is a big no-no if you're trying to ascertain something resembling objective reality.

As Sherlock Holmes said: "When you remove all impossibilities whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth."

Reality doesn't care if we don't like it, it doesn't care if we're on the "conspiracy" or the "i certainly don't believe in conspiracies" bandwagon.

It doesn't care if our delicate sensibilities and expectations of the world are trampled by quantifiable phenomena as they happen to play themselves out according to rather well-understood regularities of physics.

Personally, I'd like to be a rationalist: Question everything, check the sources, and remain constantly aware that the most efficient propagandist ever to live is our own lack of awareness and confidence.

Edit: Language

i had to log in just to give you an upvote..

Why thank you :)

I don't recommend loose change, 9/11 a new pearl harbor is much better.

May I recommend Loose Change and a bag of popcorn? After that you can take a look at Operation Northwoods, Operation Popeye, Project for the New American Century, and the ever so fun JFK assassination!

There's loads to do in Conspiriland! So jump right in and tell your friends!

May I recommend Loose Change.

Everything but these well poisoners. Try 911 and War by Deception.

Superb video. Includes information about the oh so forgotten anthrax attacks as well.

OR! Even September 11 the new Pearl Harbor.

Please...just not loose change.

Loose Change was the first documentary that really convinced me and a lot of other people to start questioning the official story, so I wouldn't hate on it too much.

I wouldn't say it's a "hate" of Loose Change. There we many talking points in the film that either were completely absurd (the early "tube" or something strapped to the bottom of UA flight 175). Being an airplane extreme nerd my entire life I thought this was the most ludicrous and distracting claim I had ever seen. Or misleading, such as the pictures Loose Change uses to show where the plane (or whatever it was) hit the Pentagon. Many photos they selected of the Pentagon had the complete first level covered by foam being sprayed by first responders. They then go on to create a theory based on the pictures, which just in not correct. There ARE good points relating to the collapse of three buildings that way and insider trading and what not. That is why I would not suggest this movie to anyone genuinely interesting in the topic.

I wouldn't say it's a "hate" of Loose Change.

Then don't use loaded hyperbolic phrases like "well poisoners." Just say you think there are better sources elsewhere.

That's fair. I guess I really came at it hard.

SMH. Only in /r/conspiracy do I see this kind of mature, rational exchange.

Hah I'm really sorry....he called me out. Made sense. Met in the middle, we're all on the same team here.

As long as you've learned your lesson.

I have. And if that's not the point of all this- living and learning. Then sheet I don't know what the point is.

Being an airplane extreme nerd my entire life I thought this was the most ludicrous and distracting claim I had ever seen

Yeah, but a 747 with turbine engines made out of titanium completely vaporized along with any bodies, (from the plane, not the building) the cockpit, the wings, the fuselage, etc. while still finding the paper passport of the hijacker that flew the plane makes absolute perfect sense and it's very scientific.

Yeah, but a 747

If I recall no Boeing 747s were used on 9/11. Now, as for the 757s and 767s used and their huge and incredibly strong engines, I cannot tell you what happened to them I am void of an explanation...especially with the passport (same goes for the passport found from flight 93). I do know that an airplane is a hollow tube with a lot of fuel in its wings. BUT to blindly assume there is some sort of "thing"? attached to the bottom when its clearly the landing gear wells and housing areas and whatever else the have on the bottom of standard commercial airliners. I digress though....the passports is the biggest fraud in this that I can think of, truly unfathomable how it could have survived. As for the aircraft. That hallow tube had its peddle to the metal and since I've never seen a fast moving aircraft hit a building I have nothing to base what happened on that day on. And that's not even getting into the fact I've that those commercial aircraft could not even get close to that speed flying so close to sea level. Something about the air being to dense and causing the engines to chock the dense air back out of the engine if I recall?

at least one engine was ejected from the building entirely and was found on Murray St.

wrong engines for the type.

and not forgetting the wheel assembly found between two buildings in Manhattan, complete with rope attached to it for the lowering between the buildings.

now that wheel thing has/had serial numbers on it, why have we not heard anything about them and it.

It is a JT9D-7. Truther sites routinely show schematics of the earlier type, not the revision in order to spread this nonsense.

• what was the purpose of planting an engine? If planted, why couldn't they bother to get the correct engine type (always with the stupid mistakes! like the BBC reporting early!)
• why was the engine steaming hot when found?
• really, they couldn't be bothered to remove the rope? even years later? LOL.

go see the engine for yourself and get some serial numbers. It's hanging in the museum.

I do recall, as well as an engine recovered in the Pentagon.

a small engine core. not the monster sized cores from 757/767

From what I've seen, yes you're correct. Now. As for what it is an engine to, can't really say. I've heard global hawk, a missile, and also a helicopter. But that's about as far as my theorizing goes for that.

might want to re-evaluate your hobby then. No 747s were involved. They look a bit different than a 767.

What do you think of the arguments made in Zeitgeist? I know its a three part and only the middle 45 minutes or so is on 9/11 but its a little more grounded than Loose Change. One of my favorite docs of all time.

To be honest. It's been a few years since I watched Zeitgeist. I recall me enjoying it, but I cant give you an honest response without watching it again...as I'm doing as we breath.

I like zeitgeist but the first 30 45 minutes are not great. The anti religion stuff isn't entirely accurate.

I do remember I had looked some of that stuff and found it hard to back up what they were saying in the beginning as well.

Lies sandwiched between truths. Disinfo 101 in action.

Exactly. Have too watch out for it.

Loose Change was the first documentary that really convinced me and a lot of other people to start questioning the official story, so I wouldn't hate on it too much.

Feelz.

It was Zeitgeist for me.

You're shadowbanned my man.

What's so bad about Loose Change? I felt like it makes a good starting point into the 9/11 conspiracy theory (even though it wasn't my starting point). I guess what I can appreciate from it is it's lack of conspiritard circlejerk that you see poisoning the minds of the average American into thinking all conspiracy theorists think this is true (ie "NO PLANES WERE USED IN 9/11", or "OBAMA THE SUPREME LIZARD OVERLORD).

I assume the documentaries you listed have to do with the more geopolitical side of the 9/11 conspiracy, which I myself am more bought into, while Loose Change takes a look at the unprecedented collapse of 3 steel frame skyscrapers, their speedy cleanup, and the convenient use of "evidence" in the form of passports miraculously recovered by the "terrorists".

Personally I would recommend the "X amazing facts you may not know about 9/11" series. All 3 of them were fascinating and include a perfect balance of the 2 sides of the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Honestly there is so much well poisoning with "OBAMA SHAPE SHIFTING LIZARD KING" noise and "NO PLANES USED" as well as many theories in between.

while Loose Change takes a look at the unprecedented collapse of 3 steel frame skyscrapers, their speedy cleanup, and the convenient use of "evidence" in the form of passports miraculously recovered by the "terrorists".

I agree, it can definitely get somebodies brain itching with question and is a good "gate way" video I suppose. Though it would not be my first recommendation to someone genuinely interested in the subject.

Personally I would recommend the "X amazing facts you may not know about 9/11" series. All 3 of them were fascinating and include a perfect balance of the 2 sides of the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

I've watched the first one, I'll have to watch the second one.

At the end of it all. I have read and watched soooo soo much noisy crap theories. Had to read and watch a lot, and eventually (based on what I've found) weed out the fringe theories and stick with what can almost certainly be backed up by verifiable proof.

I'm actually interested in hearing what you thought of those circlejerk well poison videos and what drove you to watch them. I only watched 1 30 minutes video on how "no planes were used" and it was talking about how the government conviscated every video people shot of the twin towers, altered them, then gave them back without a word being muttered. I find it kind of fascinating to see to what extent people will go to and for what reason.

So what exactly did the Obama Lizard videos present and how did the publisher prove Barak Osama is a member of the Alien Council of the 12th Planet?

I'm actually interested in hearing what you thought of those circlejerk well poison videos and what drove you to watch them.

Well, I watched them at the very beginning of my personal "journey" I guess you could say. I didn't really know better. So I watched with a grain of salt and tried to verify what I had seen. If I could verify then great- odds are it introduced me to another aspect. If I could not verify it then I wouldn't pursue the allegations or theories to far.

I find it kind of fascinating to see to what extent people will go to and for what reason.

It is indeed fascinating and at the start I was totally into it. "This is some huge fucked up crazy shit that they did with shit we don't know about". That's what my mind set was. And for all we know that could be true...but I think It's a tad bit more rational and simplistic (even though it's a convoluted subject) scenario that occurred. No need to use holograms or direct energy rays or what have you. Now I will entertain any theory, that certainly doesn't mean I take that theory to be true.

So what exactly did the Obama Lizard videos present and how did the publisher prove Barak Osama is a member of the Alien Council of the 12th Planet?

HAHAH. No, this was a joke. I have not seen a video relating to Obama and any sort of Alien-King-Lizardom type things.

Loose Change never mentioned the dancing Isr@elis

I thought Explosive Evidence was really well put together

Indeed it is. I should do a recap, it has been a while.

Here you go, some fresh pop-corn!

I am a bot. I am made by Roelof1337.

damn that trip through memory lane though, thanks bot!

No problem.

(This is /u/Roelof1337)

So, what's the point. Spend hours, weeks, years, submerging oneself into all this info and then what-- tell your friends?

Skepticism is extremely healthy.

We probably went to the moon, but it wasn't with that shitty technology and it certainly didn't happen the way they claimed.

(Whoops, NASA deleted all the original footage!)

Moving the goal post?

Skepticism is indeed healthy, just remember to apply it as thoroughly when dealing with "alternative news"

Governments and corporations lie all the time. Why are these two things almost entirely absent in the "skeptic" crowd? That's because they aren't real skeptics. A real skeptic is just plain skeptical of claims, especially the ones that come from entities which lie all of the time.

The people who call themselves skeptics are really just "official story parrots." They blindly trust known liars, which is much worse IMO than the other end of the spectrum- crazy conspiracy nuts. Find a middle ground where you can take information in and analyze it, no matter where it comes from.

How did I imply anything different by my comment?

Yes, governments & corporations lie all the time, just like alternative news websites (what? They earn money from your visits on their clickbait articles?!)

Mindlessly accepting something because it's not mainstream is just as naïve. Above all you have to make sure you're not lying to yourself.

How did anyone imply that skepticism shouldn't be applied to alternative sources? No one did but you said it anyways

You're misinterpreting my comment. I was just clarifying what I hope you meant. It was a one-liner, so I wanted to add to it.

The people who call themselves skeptics are really just "official story parrots." They blindly trust known liars, which is much worse IMO than the other end of the spectrum- crazy conspiracy nuts. Find a middle ground where you can take information in and analyze it, no matter where it comes from.

So well said.

Try looking at the problem a bit differently:

1) I have never been to the moon.

2) Someone has claimed to go there.

3) I ask for proof they went there. (The burden is on them, not me)

4) The proof I receive is full of holes, mostly comes in the form of fallacy (mostly argument from authority), so I consider it may not be true.

5) The only proof I'm left with is photographs and videos, which is exactly what we have for proof of aliens. The argument from authority is all we have left.

Well no, This isn't actually correct. Comparing the photographs and videos we have of the moon-landings to photos and videos of aliens is simply ignorant, and really makes you look uninformed.

The moon landings were monitored across the world, the Russians openly tracked and acknowledged the US went there, and they would have been the first to call America out on it if it even had a slight hint of being fake. We returned samples, we gathered data, and we still have pieces of the landers on the moon which has been verified by third party satellites.

Can you provide any actual factual evidence we didn't?

Not to mention the retro reflectors.

Don't believe we landed on the moon? Shine a laser at it in a very specific spot. Why a specific spot? We put something in that spot that'll reflect a laser back.

I'm not saying skepticism isn't healthy but you have to pick your battles.

Can you point to any reference about where those reflectors are and what needs to be done to test them? Even so, it's still not clear cut. Landing objects on the moon is one thing. Manned flight there is another.

Someone else on reddit actually covered it better than I can. TL;DR it's not as simple as pointing a laser pointer at the moon. You do need specialized equipment.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/qw30x/can_an_amateur_astronomer_test_the_lunar_laser/

Landing objects on the moon is one thing. Manned flight there is another.

I'm by no means an expert on the subject but it seems landing something like this without the evidence of things to soften the landing is quite difficult. It seems like it would have to have been placed there.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Devils advocate here. Can you provide solid evidence for these claims? I've seen rocks from the moon. I can't verify myself if that's where they're from. Regarding things left on the moon, I haven't seen any reliable photos. I've seen some photos which are incredibly blurry and suspect but nothing else.

'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake

29 Aug 2009: Curators at Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, where the rock has attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year, discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at £308,000, was in fact petrified wood...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

Thanks for the info. The samples I've seen are in a London museum and the Smithsonian. Moon rock should have very specific isotopes so it'd be interesting to see analysis on those.

I wanted to point out about NASA deleting all (most of) their original footage, but you beat me to it.

I was always suspicious of moon landings and have said this before so this is how i see it, 1st (unofficial ofc) time they went to the moon (probably with far better tech then they had at that time lol) and landed then they found out something that they did not expect and were "told" never to come here again (maybe near or on dark side of the moon) yet they got all the footage and decided this cant get out to the public, ever. So they faked the whole thing live (1st official moon landing)... the rest is history i guess. Its all planed and i think we (humans) and them (some of them NOT all Sentient E.T.s) have some kind of an agreement and has been for a LONG time. When you have enough time, tech and resources you can fake, cover-up, manipulate or pretty much anything you want for your agenda, yet there is no such thing as perfection and with this we see only fragments of the WHOLE PICTURE, The Truth.

How can we get a cool little icon next to our names so we can be special too?

Personally, I'm a fan of this assessment of the veracity of the first moon landing.

What's more likely is that the moderators do not think that /r/Space is the place for conspiracy discussions, and have found in the past that any discussion of said conspiracy theory completely derails the kinds of discussions they want to have in that sub-reddit.

It's not a conspiracy to say "we don't want to have that kind of discussion here, thank you very much, please take it elsewhere".

Wanna talk about whether the first moon landing happened the way we're told it did? Welcome to /r/Conspiracy. It's why this place exists.

That video is hilariously shortsighted.

We invented several new technologies to get to the moon: believable.

We improved existing film technology: unbelievable.

Hell, even in the official story new specialty cameras were made.

Cameras that could store this much data, but were never disseminated into the public's spectrum of technology? Almost all military tech is eventually fed to the public, so what happened to these awesome camera storage systems?

What are you talking about data storage?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtwSgvstl8c

That couldn't be faked? What?

I'm not an expert on the moon landing or on the conspiracy theory, so I'm not up for a back-and-forth on the matter right now. I simply find that video from the filmmaker presents quite a convincing argument. Not a definitive one, but a convincing one.

I tend to say that we probably did land on the moon in '69, and that we certainly have been to the moon since then, as evidenced by the laser reflector thingies that are still up there.

Bit of a problem though as not only is the moon naturally reflective enough for laser-ranging, but multiple unmanned craft have placed successful retroreflectors on the moon.

Given that, how does a retroreflector provide proof that man walked on the moon?

I guess it could have been unmanned rovers that put the retroreflectors down (normal reflective moon-surface would scatter a laser, not return it, right?), but as I said, I'm not an expert and not willing to go back and forth on this one. I'm not that fussed either way.

The laser experiment is laughable. Point a laser at a distant object, observe laser reflection. Hell, a 40 dollar laser measuring tape works on this basic principle and doesn't require mirrors.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from moon's surface using a laser with a millisecond pulse length.

Just a fun fact, irrelevant when drones can place a retroreflector just as well. The claim that retroreflectors prove men on the moon is fallacious.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

^{HelperBot_™ v1.0 I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 4631}

this'll get downvoted to hell on this sub, but it's the truth. most people don't want to be labelled conspiracy theorists. it's self censorship. it's very unhealthy but that's how society works at the moment.

The moderation of spaces is not censorship as long as alternative spaces are allowed to exist.

As long as you are able to self-publish, you are not being censored. There is no right to an equal platform.

Those that publish content have the right to moderate that content.

It has nothing to do with a "fear" of being labelled a "conspiracy nut", and more to do with that kind of discussion simply not being within the purview of that particular space. Most people in /r/Space do not go there to talk about conspiracies, so conspiracy posts are inappropriate.

but a conspiracy about a spacial event should be able to be discussed in said sub, not doing so shows some form of self-censorship at the very least.

why would r/space not be concerned about conspiracies relating to space?

locking up all conspiracies in one place simply encourages the opinion that all conspiracies are crazy, when you've just got to open a history book or wikipedia to know that conspiracies have always existed and always will.

what's the point of having all conspiracies regrouped in one space if not to imply that conspiracies are apart from normal events?

That is a valid point about "discussion ghettos" (as it were), but I still think that /r/Space moderators are within their rights to say that they don't want to provide a platform for moon landing conspiracy discussions and would rather encourage more consensus topics, as this particular theory has, in the public eye, been pretty thoroughly debunked.

Other space-related conspiracy theories might well be welcome there; I don't know.

valid point, I don't believe in the moon landing hoax personally and think it is one of the higher achievements of the human race, I just always feel a bit of a cringe when something like this is deleted rather than explained.

LOL. One of the "highest achievements" and we only have a low res recording of a recording of the first steps on the moon (alleged) because even after the compatibility issues were resolved, the original footage was never shown publicly and was then deleted. It takes as special kind to truly buy that one.

I like to keep an open mind, but there's some pretty good proof that we've been on the moon. I've listened to hours of compelling evidence on both sides of the coin but this pretty much puts the nail in the coffin to me.

http://youtu.be/VmVxSFnjYCA

Ah, the classic retroreflector argument.

Bit of a problem though as not only is the moon naturally reflective enough for laser-ranging, but multiple unmanned craft have placed successful retroreflectors on the moon.

Given that, how does a retroreflector provide proof that man walked on the moon?

This is a fun topic for me, if you're up to the challenge. I contest that, barring the questionable film evidence, there is not a single, solitary piece of evidence that man has ever walked on the moon.

there is not a single, solitary piece of evidence that man has ever walked on the moon.

Is there not? Gravity is really hard to recreate. You would need to suspend everything that moves.

Another is the scenery. Could they have faked it back then? How would they had the knowledge what the scenery would be really like without having today's technology to map it beforehand to make the studio setup.

Hey, you dropped this:

barring the questionable film evidence

I don't want to get into the mountains of nonsense surrounding the film, the basic idea is that at the end of the day if a video is the only proof you have, you might need to think about that a bit.

I did drop the word barring plus read it a little wrong sorry for that. And, really me neither, wanting to go into the mountains of nonsense about the films.

But yeah, for me they are the biggest green light that they really were there and I don't find them questionable at the moment at all.

If asking the other way around, what's the biggest giveaway they were (or the fist was) faked, I can't say. Nothing on the same level as the films on the opposite side.

The biggest giveaway is that the only evidence we went there is highly questionable film.

There is literally no other evidence.

You choose to believe that retroreflectors prove men have walked on the moon when you know that man is unnecessary for lunar retroreflectors?

Why?

Well I don't believe the reflectors prove anything, another guy here just replying to your earlier comment to someone else.

The films are not the only evidence, but everything can be faked so what we have is a pile of questionable evidence. For example, the broadcasts were recorded by others than Nasa too. Of course, the craft going to the Moon without men inside could just be a relay or transmitter with a reel of film in it. The craft was tracked on it's way by others, still no men required. If we go this route then there truly is never a way to know this one for sure because even if some DNA was found at the spots they perhaps were at it could have been brought there by a robot. Then it just comes to which would have been more likely, send complicated robots or send men. We already have good enough resolution images that we know there is something left at the landing sites and probably in the next 50 years finer images that show what there really is.

I guess this is a meaningless discussion as we agree on most things, except I believe they visited the Moon and don't remain that skeptical as I was when starting this journey to the Moon landing conspiracy.

We already have good enough resolution images that we know there is something left at the landing sites

This is untrue, the best quality photos of the landing site are several degrees worse than the first iteration of google earth.

Besides, it's still firmly in the realm of film evidence.

https://www.google.com/search?q=moon+orbiter+photo+apollo+landing+sites&safe=off&tbm=isch

Questionable? Yes, obviously they could be photoshopped and so on, but if not then there is something at least.

So, you are telling me that there is no evidence that man has walked on the moon that isn't easily faked?

Weird, huh?

I never said that. I think the evidence is extremely difficult to fake and the films almost impossible. My biggest point is the scenery, they could not have known how the Moon looks at that level of detail that has only now been confirmed to be 1:1 to how it looks in the films. One can still argue that everything can be faked, the question is which is more probable / easier.

Why couldn't they have known what the area looked like exactly? They've sent unmanned probes to the moon, you know?

I'm not here claiming the moon is made of cheese or a hologram, I'm saying that men have not walked on it.

For a more tinfoil approach, they are both fake, which is why they are congruent.

But again, I really don't have any interest in talking about imagery, but since were on the topic I have a few pictures I'd like you to glance at.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/07/20/new-blue-marble

Had you ever played "spot the difference" games as a child? Give it a whirl on images two and four on this page.

The takeaway is that NASA does fake imagery, poorly, and that I personally don't find discussing any imagery by them or any space agency that falls for their imagery as worthwhile.

You do realize that it's beginning to be easier to just send men than probes to check out in detail each of the landing zones. They knew they could die, no reason not to send men if you just have a box they can fit in and launch with a rocket. Much simpler than the route to fake it. Of course they could have sent probes, landed them, checked out how it looks and then replicate on set. But then again, if they could do that, they could send men too.

The images you linked look fine to me. I think what you mean by the difference is how big the continent looks. If you image close by, it looks big, if you image from further away with narrower lens (although as the article says they are stitched from multiple images, so it could be whatever lens, but they are recreating a single photograph) you will see the continent smaller and more land (other continents) will become visible too. Open Google Earth and try it out. If that was not the difference then I didn't pick it up, you will need to tell what part of them is faked.

While you don't like discussing the imagery or video footage I'll ask anyway, what is your view on how the gravity could have been faked?

I have no idea where you get the idea that it's easier to send men than robots, particularly over time. Men need air, water, food, facilities, space, climate control systems, pressure control systems, space suits, and more; this increases the weight tremendously in comparison to a drone made of light allows folded in on itself the size of a briefcase. Weight is a huge factor when you are trying to hurl a mass out of earths gravity well.

They knew they could die, no reason not to send men

Not even the fact that they could, I dunno, die?

if you just have a box they can fit in and launch with a rocket.

You don't just shove astronauts into a luggage compartment and blast them off. I don't know where you got the idea that space travel is such a simple affair and am baffled at how one could think sending men is easier than drones.

The images you linked look fine to me.

They are meant to be representations of the earth from space with no respect for scale.

I have no idea where you get the idea that it's easier to send men than robots, particularly over time.

I never said that it was. I said robots + faked scenes at home could be more complicated. This somewhat depends on if they wanted to make sure nobody would never find out. If they did that, they would need to have complicated drones to replicate the astronauts actions on the Moon and leave the equipment at correct places etc.

They are meant to be representations of the earth from space with no respect for scale.

I think I explained that scale issue, depends from how far the images are taken or in this case are made to look like. The second image was made to look like it was taken from low altitude while the fourth from a lot further.

If the cameras were at different distances it would have no impact on the relation between the diameter of the earth and the width of the country.

Both would be smaller or larger. The diameter of the earth would not remain the same while the country grows.

Wide angle for close up, narrow for further away and the apparent Earth size stays exactly the same if you want so by selecting the proper lens. And when photographing from far away you see almost the full half of the Earth while from close you don't, thus continents look bigger. From close by you don't see the almost full half but much less. There really is nothing wrong in those images.

Edit: Take a football plus a cam with some zoom ability and try it out. You will find out that without zoom taking the photo as close as possible while still having the ball fully visible in the image the parts of the ball will look bigger and you don't see the parts that are on the sides. Then move further, zoom in, and you see the ball the same size but now the parts look smaller and you see all of them that are on the side you are taking the photo from.

Wow.

Wow what? Hope you read the edit, go find out ;)

Still wow.

One more wow? It's called perspective that's behind this.

We made a full circle of wanting to avoid the nonsense circulating around the Nasa imagery and here we are.

I was the one you challenged about the retroreflectors and I've done some digging and have taken the perverbial coffin off the nail with that one and feel a little more moved to a neutral stance.

I found pics on this website with what looks like good evidence to me. http://www.universetoday.com/113359/what-does-the-apollo-11-landing-site-look-like-today/ I respectfully ask how you would refute that?

By using my brilliant skills in precognition to bar film evidence from the discussion as highly questionable, as I did in my original post and the one you just responded too.

We could argue fruitlessly over whether or not the image is faked, but I think if you find this picture to be the most compelling evidence that man walked on the moon this conversation won't be very fruitful regardless.

I'm not just looking up a picture and taking it at face value. And there is no argument, only a healthy discussion unless your feeling the need to flex your ego.

The world was watching with scrutiny as the landing happened so I would be interested in hearing why you think a space program from a different country like russia, india, or Japan hasn't provided proof that the landing didn't happen.

I use the word "argue" as a philosopher would, rather than as a wife would.

I answered this in this thread, here's a copy/paste

Several problems with the Russian theory.

First you assume they were our enemies, let's say they truly were. Next you assume they tell the truth during what was allegedly the greatest spy vs spy espionage exchange in history.

Consider this: competing countries threatening annihilation but wishing to avoid mutually assured destruction do not let their enemies know they can't track ballistic missles.

But that's just to appease the part of you that buys the Cold War story. According to a certain untrustworthy source the USSR and NASA were cooperating throughout the "space race". While the article begins saying cooperation began in the 80s it then continues to enumerate all of the cooperation in the decades preceding. Many of these cooperations would be textbook treasonous were the Russians truly our enemies.

As for japan and India, they didn't have space programs at the time. Interesting coincidence, they suddenly developed in the wake of the apollo missions.

Again I'll stress the ignorance of implying to the world you are unable to track ballistic missles at this or any time of their existence and remind you of your observation that a missle is not men regardless. I am convinced men have sent craft to the moon, but not that craft have sent men.

I could see that all being reality. I'm aware of the fact that American/world history being a facade to keep a front while "they" have done there dirty work in the shadows infront of our face. To me I guess I just dont see why they would lie about putting a man on the moon. I've done some digging on things like the radiation belt keeping men from travelling so far into space but I don't know enough about it to make an informed oppinion. Care to elaborate on what purpose it would serve to lie about landing men there?

I can't really pretend to know the motives behind such a stunt.

I suppose the easiest answer would be money. Taxpayer money was funneled into private corporations who work for profit. Graft and corruption is about par for the course, wouldn't you say?

Propoganda works as well, not only instilling a sense of American exceptionalism but also cloaking the defense (read: war) budget with the guise of scientific advancement.

Getting weirder, perhaps some sort of large-scale psychological experiment gauging public trust, intelligence, or threshold for evidence.

It could also be something wildly outside most sensible people's view of reality being hidden from us, things no one could hope to guess at given the illusion cast on our reality with such programs.

I honestly don't know why they would fake it, but why would I?

The lack of original footage of the first (fake) steps on the moon + the stereoparallax analysis definitively proves it was all a staged sham.

Holy crap that was awesome. A treatise for r/conspiracy.

do not think that /r/Space[2] is the place for conspiracy discussions

do not think that /r/Space[2] is the place for truth

FTFY

Have you ever stopped to consider that attempting to bring up conspiracy discussions is somewhat annoying, or are you inclined to believe that everyone in a sub about space is interesting in hearing about how their life and blood (astronomy/astro physics) is ultimately faked by the US government?

there are plenty of truths discussed on /r/Space. But part of a moderator's job is to keep the discussions within certain peramaters.

"The Moon Landing was faked and there's a coverup conspiracy" is a conspiracy theory, and, as such, discussions about it have their home in /r/Conspiracy, rather than /r/Space.

The moderators would rather the sub was used for cool discussions of space stuff than a conspiracy theory. And that's their prerogative as moderators.

Exactly what I was thinking, well said. Have an up vote.

Edit: Although on second thought, the mods really should have also deleted the comment this OP was replying to as well

Yeah. Because it doesn't seem like anyone brought up the hoax topic until that person brought it up by telling people not to bring it up.

This is some great and fun reading on the moon landings:

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/ (Wagging the Moondoggie series)

I'm not sure he is right about all of this, but certainly an interesting read.

Check out this page for tons more on the Apollo Moon Landings:

http://www.terryslade.com/moonland.htm

I recently watched a new hipster film called The Dirties. One of the coolest films I have seen, but not for everyone. So based on the talent exhibited by the filmmakers, their next film has been purchased by Lionsgate and hopefully will come out this year. It is called Operation Avalanche and is about the CIA's involvement with the space race. Should be very interesting.

Yes OP please do check out wagging the moon doggie series probably best single article I've read on that subject. I used to think anyone who questioned the authenticity of the manned moon landings was crazy now I too am skeptical at best, downright disgusted at worst :/

Why would you have taken a screenshot of your comment before it had been removed?

Yeah, now that is strange... maybe he is trying to tell us something by not telling us directly O_o

[deleted]

Sooo...do you wanna become a conspiracy person? The more the merrier.

Its so great, welcome to crazy town.

Welcome to real life, where idiots like you live with people that don't accept everything they are told.

Yea, with all the rational thinking.

Truth fears no scrutiny. You are on the right track. A lot of space exploration is a hoax. Do your own research of course. Here /r/spacefraud

Not even a conspiracy person

Don't be a "conspiracy theorist". That's a label that the CIA started using in the 50s to marginalize and denigrate those people that questioned TPTB narrative on the many false flag attacks that they were perpetrating throughout the world.

Call yourself and be a critical thinker instead.

To be devils advocate, that subreddit seems to delete comments that are stemming off of another comment if the discussion starts to stray away from science.

Science™

Honestly when I read the title and originally posted I thought I saw r/science, not r/space which I also browse through. I think the same still applies but r/space seems to have more wiggle room from what I've seen.

Space®

What agenda are the mods of that subreddit defending if a comment as basic as mine is deleted?

I don't really think there is a cut and clean agenda. We've just reached the point in our country when any dissenting opinion on anything makes people feel scared and unsafe. When the mods see something that challenges ANYTHING, literally any political our science-based idea they have, it "triggers fear". (People literally put "trigger warnings" on things nowadays). We've reached the absolute pinnacle of pussification and there's no critical thinking allowed.

This sums the whole anti-conspiracy attitude up perfectly. It is against any true skepticism, and there are some things you are absolutely forbidden from even questioning. Does that sound like science or religion to you?

As far as the moon landings go here is the biggest problem I personally have with it - the only reason you don't see the stars during the day on earth is because the sun lights up the atmosphere. If there were no atmosphere you would see stars. This is as far as I know an unquestioned scientific fact based upon what we know about physics and our eyes. Yet, the astronauts claim they didn't see any stars on the moon where there is no atmosphere - that makes zero sense as far as I am concerned.

The ambient brightness of the sun in the sky even when there is no atmosphere drowns out the comparatively non-existent light from stars. It's like trying to see a streetlight from a mile away when someone is shining a torch at your face.

No, there is no ambient light from the sun when there is no atmosphere. Just don't stare directly at the sun and it wouldn't be a problem. If what you were saying were true then astronauts wouldn't be able to see stars in space either. Neil Degrasse Tyson explains it here starting around the 17:20 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8smtYxVrno

Absurd logic.

not if you are not pointing your lense at the sun or the ground, point up and you see stars.

you can see stars from the bottom of a well or similar structure in daytime on Earth, acts like a long narrow lense hood, because of atmosphere etc, zero on Moon, almost zero on Mars.

there should be some good starfield photos from Mars from the past and current rovers and their support satellites,

we have NONE.

without astronomers and their math and science over the centuries, there could not have been any space programs, the various countries official space programs ignore the needs of astronomers, Hubble being one of the few toys tossed their way.

I'm not debating that astronomers have been fucked over to an extent by the space programs of the world. We should have put a Hubble-like system in orbit of mars a decade ago, but still.

you can see stars from the bottom of a well or similar structure in daytime on Earth, acts like a long narrow lense hood, because of atmosphere etc, zero on Moon, almost zero on Mars.

Is this true? Is it still distorted by atmospheric light?

It's not just Reddit pal... it's most 1st world countries in any forum or public space you can think of...

Think of it as you being protected under the cloak of the ministry of truth...

When did science go from critical thinking and questioning everything to this academic circlejerk of narrow minded idiots that just want to push the narrative?

Think for yourself. Question everything. Even the most obvious things--question them without prejudice one way oe another. Sometimes you learn more by questioning than any other method. Your teachers might hate you for it, but hey, just remember that you're walking the same path as Galelio and Einstein.

When did science go from critical thinking and questioning everything to this academic circlejerk of narrow minded idiots that just want to push the narrative?

When $$$ got involved.

/r/space has a history of banning anyone who critiques beyond a point. Including me. I'm banned and the circle jerkers are left unperturbed to carry on their deceptive echo chambers.

Exactly, you should really research the moon landing and write about what you have found. There are many inconsistencies in their stories / footages.

Funny how them trying so hard to silence dissent often has the opposite effect. You learn to use it almost as a divining rod -- if unreasonable forces are desperately shoving you East... go West.

[deleted]

You're a flat-earther ey, just to give some context.

Or, in your case (since youre literally a flat earther), you'll ignore the mountains of evidence detailing how the world is and just believe what you want to believe.

It would seem that a mod thought that not only is scepticism unhealthy, but it's inappropriate to even mention that it's healthy. So [deleted]. That is ridiculous, but I can't say I'm entirely surprised. If you want a good place to start with the Moon landing, you could do a lot worse than Dave McGowan's epic 14 part Wagging the Moon Doggie. Before I read that, I can't say I gave the issue much thought.

Well space IS a vaccuum, maybe they're just trying to give it that authentic space feel with the thought vaccuum.

I found this study compelling. It uses NASA's own moon photos and analyses them using a technique called "stereo parallax" to determine the distance from the camera of key landmarks on the lunar surface. The results may surprise you.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Apparently_identical_backgrounds_in_Apollo_15_photographs_taken_at_different_locations

Wide angle lenses even further the effect.

If we didn't go to the moon, the first people claiming that was the case would be the Russians. But they never did. They intercepted the signals from the moon, as well as analysed the other scientific data as proof it happened. There's much more worrying and more sound conspiracy's to have faith in rather than the routinely debunked believe that man didn't go to the moon. It's also and I don't mean any offense by this, kinda ignorant to have that view, as well as borderline disrespectful to the astronauts who died making that program a success. See Buzz Aldrin's punch as proof of how passionate people can be about their achievements and sacrifices. I'd say keep conspiracy talks out of r/space, as it's viewed as a fact in that community. Doesn't mean you can't discuss it here though.

Several problems with the Russian theory.

First you assume they were our enemies, let's say they truly were. Next you assume they tell the truth during what was allegedly the greatest spy vs spy espionage exchange in history.

Consider this: competing countries threatening annihilation but wishing to avoid mutually assured destruction do not let their enemies know they can't track ballistic missles.

But that's just to appease the part of you that buys the Cold War story. According to a certain untrustworthy source the USSR and NASA were cooperating throughout the "space race". While the article begins saying cooperation began in the 80s it then continues to enumerate all of the cooperation in the decades preceding. Many of these cooperations would be textbook treasonous were the Russians truly our enemies.

I personally think it's ignorant to, well, be ignorant of such cooperations yet speak so condescendingly to those who disagree with you. Barring the questionable film, there is literally zero evidence that man has walked on the moon.

Who would have believed the Russians? Certainly not anyone in the US.

Logical fallacy. The same ethnic bankers controlled Russia, and were using the exact same scam to steal TRILLIONS from public funds.

A funny thing happened on the way to the moon. That's the name of a cool documentary on the subject if you can find it

WTF is a "conspiracy person?"

An idiot

You are now on a government hitlist.

thing is it looks like all astronauts are into the occult https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQym3jX9IOk

Welcome to the real world!

Welcome to the rabbit hole...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

I am 100% behind the official story of the moon landings and quite passionate about space and the exploration of it.

I'm wondering if anyone here who believes it to be a hoax and is reasonably well informed would like to arrange a proper debate on the matter? Maybe 5 rounds or something, 1 day per round? Maybe make a thread for it or something? I've never done that kind of thing before but it sounds like it could be useful/fun.

Anyone?

Ill say this evert single time, because that is truly how pathetic the situation is.

Believing in the moon landings is the adult equivalent of a chile believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.

This is essential reading that clearly shows absurd the whole thing is http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

why did you take a screenshot of your comment?

you disturbed their religious trance of mind.

don't need science or pesky hard evidence, just gotta ease up on thinking for oneself, and believe their story.

I worked in the space industry for a while. Something interesting I did were cosmic galactic radiation calculations for part of a space craft. So, I don't think it's impossible to go to space, much less close by to our moon. The most difficult part would be reaching escape velocity and protecting humans and equipment from radiation damage. So going to the moon wouldn't be too bad with today's technology and knowledge. Going to Mars though, don't know how safe that is. However if there is something I don't understand about the moon landings, for example why some of you think it was fake, please explain to me why you think that is so. I am interested.

nasa didnt know of the van allen belt before they went to the moon from what little information i could get and this one kinda makes me wonder...

Yes, yes they did know. They planned the trajectory of the Lunar-insertion to account for this and avoid it.

Aurora borealis and the magnetic core of the earth aren't new to anyone, the Van halen belt got theorized long ago and confirmed in 1958.

I've heard second-hand from a DOD physicist that we were/ are able to go through the van Allen belts with lots of lead shielding. However, the first moon landing was likely fake so we could be cooler than the USSR

What is this bullshit doing here? This isn't news, just click bait. We already now reddit has it's own agenda.

Reddit is the Turing test. All of you can't be real? I can't tell the deference of life and robot. Humans suck and they make AI's, so computers quantify human shityness. Educate or ignore. If you are too smart to debate, then study something new.

Did they really design suits that could handle temperatures of -243F to +253F?

It's extremely cold in the shade and scorching hot under the sun. Transitioning from shadow to sunlight had to turn off the heat and crank up the AC instantaneously.

I'd like to know more how this worked.

Also, how were the cameras, camera film and other equipment able to handle temperatures like that?

But... Thats not close to how heat transfer works. If you wanna use this excuse, at least come up with good arguments.

Have you ever handled the material that space shuttles have lining the outside? Because I have, both after being dunked in liquid nitrogen and under a Bunsen burner. Their heat transfer resistance is so high that it won't freeze or burn you.

I just asked a question. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the suits.

Were the suits lined with the same heat resistant tiles of the space shuttle that first took flight in 1981?

What I'm saying is your question isn't really relevant because anything with high enough thermal resistance will either lose heat slow enough it doesn't matter or vice versa, something that was accounted for when manufacturing the suits. And yes, this technology has been around for a long time.

Heat transfer isn't instantaneous, it operates in basically the same way diffusion does (indeed, the governing equations are fundamentally the same). Jumping between a 400 degree temperature difference might actually have negligible effects in a vacuum as well as there isn't any substance to transfer that heat to the astronauts aside from electromagnetic radiation (if we ignore the soles of the feet).

I am not even a conspiracy person

You say that like it's something to be proud of. Educate yourself and you will become one.

We shouldn't call it that. Like we're "conspiracy people", we're freethinkers and society puts us in an area where we freethinkers are considered crazy and theorist's.

They will not entertain the Electric Universe version of events

First of all you might take Reddit too seriously, second of all the conspiracy rabbit hole never ends.

It kind of does. A lot of us have found the bottom of the barrel. There you'll find all the great teachers Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, Shiva, rastafara etc

Yeah look into it, that'll show'em !

Regular mods, random people like you and me, decided it would be better for their sub-forum about space to banish posts mentionning the same 20 years old conspiracy theories that pop-up about 10 times a day?

Beats-me...NASA paid them, i don't see any other explanation.

You have dozens of sites and hundreds of youtube videos to discuss or further your knowledge in nutjobness, but somehow you have to do it in a legit space forum, or else it prooves you're onto something.

I guess i should look into being gay, because i got banned from the westboro baptist church, so there must be something to it they don't want me to know. Care to join me?

I wanted to point out about NASA deleting all (most of) their original footage, but you beat me to it.

Moving the goal post?

Skepticism is indeed healthy, just remember to apply it as thoroughly when dealing with "alternative news"

damn that trip through memory lane though, thanks bot!

How can we get a cool little icon next to our names so we can be special too?

Honestly when I read the title and originally posted I thought I saw r/science, not r/space which I also browse through. I think the same still applies but r/space seems to have more wiggle room from what I've seen.

I was always suspicious of moon landings and have said this before so this is how i see it, 1st (unofficial ofc) time they went to the moon (probably with far better tech then they had at that time lol) and landed then they found out something that they did not expect and were "told" never to come here again (maybe near or on dark side of the moon) yet they got all the footage and decided this cant get out to the public, ever. So they faked the whole thing live (1st official moon landing)... the rest is history i guess. Its all planed and i think we (humans) and them (some of them NOT all Sentient E.T.s) have some kind of an agreement and has been for a LONG time. When you have enough time, tech and resources you can fake, cover-up, manipulate or pretty much anything you want for your agenda, yet there is no such thing as perfection and with this we see only fragments of the WHOLE PICTURE, The Truth.

not if you are not pointing your lense at the sun or the ground, point up and you see stars.

you can see stars from the bottom of a well or similar structure in daytime on Earth, acts like a long narrow lense hood, because of atmosphere etc, zero on Moon, almost zero on Mars.

there should be some good starfield photos from Mars from the past and current rovers and their support satellites,

we have NONE.

without astronomers and their math and science over the centuries, there could not have been any space programs, the various countries official space programs ignore the needs of astronomers, Hubble being one of the few toys tossed their way.

No, there is no ambient light from the sun when there is no atmosphere. Just don't stare directly at the sun and it wouldn't be a problem. If what you were saying were true then astronauts wouldn't be able to see stars in space either. Neil Degrasse Tyson explains it here starting around the 17:20 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8smtYxVrno

Absurd logic.

From what I've seen, yes you're correct. Now. As for what it is an engine to, can't really say. I've heard global hawk, a missile, and also a helicopter. But that's about as far as my theorizing goes for that.

But... Thats not close to how heat transfer works. If you wanna use this excuse, at least come up with good arguments.

Have you ever handled the material that space shuttles have lining the outside? Because I have, both after being dunked in liquid nitrogen and under a Bunsen burner. Their heat transfer resistance is so high that it won't freeze or burn you.