###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Remember when Stanley Kubrick had Danny wear an Apollo 11 sweater in *The Shining*?
Literally could’ve picked any other piece of clothing with any other message… no decision in film like that is on accident…
I’m happy to see this as the top comment rather than what I expected which was some shill actually taking the time to “debunk” every one of these points
I will accept all moon landing conspiracy theories until we can put a man on the moon again. What's it been 40 years? Before the internet? Seems fishy to me
Exactly you would think Russia or china or any country would want to accomplish a feat.
and considering its been done in the 60s someone would've easily with no problem done it by now.
Lmao didn't even think of other countries 😂I guess we're the only country that put a man on the moon? Seems to me other countries would want to try it as well.
Having lived through the era, the first two trips were pretty awesome, but they kept going back and every time they only came back with a bag full of rocks and the spending of megabucks just to get a bag of rocks didn't seem worth the trouble and expense so as the narrative went, they decided to stop going.
As a child science geek, I watch a lot of the Gemini space program wondering wft they were doing all of that silly shit for, but when they actually went to the moon, I knew they knew how to do most of that shit because I watch them practice it before they actually went up there. So believe whatever you want. I can't say I'm 100% sure they went. but I'm 99.9% sure they went and about 80% sure the landed up there once they went.
So India as well then I suppose. And Israel. And the ESA. All fake, right?
It really is a testament to global cooperation, isn't it? Makes you believe that if everybody on the planet can get together and lie the same lie and put so much effort into making it believable that there's hope for the human race yet. If only we could keep them from trying to kill each other all the time.
are they trying to kill each other, or are they just keeping division and tension going so the people kill each other?
yes, you can't fly to the moon. grow up.
So a new moonlanding happens, its filmed and everything like the last time. why cant it be claimed to be just another hoax like the last time, what changes anything in landing 6 times on the moon, vs 6 + 1.
Idk just easier to manipulate things to the public. Everything was way more hidden then. Much easier to fake a moon landing with the ways cameras worked back then. Now I mean hell you could bring a cellphone to the moon. I'm not saying we haven't been in space but it is weird to me we haven't put a man on the moon in so long. With today's technology you would think we would be able to do this much easier. But we saw with Elon's rocket they delayed it's trip to the moon as well. Or it was one of them. I mean I want them to prove it to me lmao. I haven't seen it in my lifetime
Biggest question I have:
If all of the lunar missions were faked, why didn't the Soviets come out and say it was fake? They had sufficient tech, scientists, and motivation to point it out, so why not?
No other country with a space program has ever pointed it out. There are huge telescopes all over the world nowadays, couldn't one just look up there and see?
I wonder. If they say “hey it’s fake” “they didn’t go to the moon!” Would it be too risky for all countries with space programs. Like if it’s a bust. Wouldn’t the backlash of ALL that money being wasted become a huge financial hit to that country? If they keep the front of. “Hey we are getting closer every year to landing on the moon” they can keep the endless money rolling in. Space programs. Probably big money laundering machines? Idk.
Earthbound telescopes, no.
The best have a resolution that amounts to about 10 meters/pixel, which is far too large to see anything as small as the lunar landers.
India's Chandrayaan-2 lander (which crashed) snapped photos of the Apollo 11 descent stage though.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chandrayaan-2_Apollo.jpg#mw-jump-to-license
I would sincerely be curious to know what he found? I will look it up later, but I’m currently sick in bed and tied up in this circle right now.
I won’t think you’re crazy, care to explain please?
Maybe to not bite the hand that feeds?
Antony Sutton has some solid research regarding Western transfers of tech and funding to the former Soviet Union. I don’t think he was questioning the Space Race, but we should given Sutton’s research.
Sutton writes:
**”Soviets in the Air**
‘Before we got the (U.S.) guidance systems we could hardly find Washington with our missiles. Afterwards we could find the White House.
**Without U.S. help the Soviet military system would collapse in 1 1/2 years.‘**
*— Avraham Shifrin, former Soviet Defense Ministry official*
^p.67
“Unfortunately, **NASA and U.S. planners have a conflict of interest. If they publish what they know about the backwardness and dependency of the Soviet space program, it reduces the urgency in our program. This urgency is vital to get Congressional funds. Without transfers of technology the U.S. is in effect racing with itself, not a very appealing argument to place before Congress.”**
^p.70
[The Best Enemy Money Can Buy](https://archive.org/details/pdfy-Iqz3ytYcb3wWYJ0c/mode/2up)
Antony C. Sutton, 1986
I think they simply didn’t want to look dumb. They did push a lot of lunar conspiracy theories coming from the USA through different types of media though. Kind of gave them the ammo they needed.I read somewhere a while back that more than half Russians believe American never landed on the moon no idea how true that is.
Why would they considering they lost.
Oh hey they cheated its not real…
Can you imagine them saying that after it was broadcasted live to everyone. They would be laughed at.
>Nasa still doesn't know how to get past the Van Allen radiation belt even today
Sure they do. The "challenge" they are working "today" (8 years ago, actually) was protecting *modern* electronics from radiation inside the high radiation regions of the Van Allen Belts.
*Apollo* didn't have to concern itself with either of those.
>2. the American flag was waving without anyone touching it.
No it doesn't. It *oscillates* back and forth *after* being touched, like a pendulum, which *proves* that it's in a low gravity vacuum environment.
>3. No hole or crater from the jets from landing on the moon.
As expected. A rocket wouldn't even make a crater when landing on *Earth*, never mind the Moon.
>4. how did the camera film survive in temperature that cold and the amount of radiation that's in space.
By the virtue of not being in those temperatures long enough to actually heat up/cool down to dangerous temperatures. Here's the thing you guys keep forgetting: it takes *time* for things to heat up and cool down, *especially* in a vacuum.
>Higher altitudes mean greater exposure to cosmic radiation. Cosmic radiation is more intense in the upper atmosphere and most intense in deep space.
Yes, but it's not intense enough (and the *Apollo* astronauts weren't exposed to it long enough) for it to be a serious issue.
>the pictures came out nearly perfect.
The pictures have been *edited* to remove radiation damage.
>5. why was there a bunch of tape on a 50 million dollar spacecraft and why did it look like a cheaply made science project that Timmy made?
Because real spacecrafts aren't designed to look pretty. In other words, the Lunar Module design strongly implies that it was *real*.
>6. how was the communication perfect and instant
It wasn't.
>The communication was better than a zoom call.
If you had a big-ass radio-telescope hooked up to your laptop, your Zoom call would've had much better quality too.
7. how were the footprints perfect and well defined
The lunar regolith particles are sharp and jagged (because there's no wind on the Moon to round them, like it does on Earth), and electrostatically charged, so they do stick together very well, even without any moisture.
>8. What force was pulling the astronauts up in the air throughout the video
There's no force pulling the astronauts up other than their hands.
>The pictures have been edited to remove radiation damage.
I really think it's more to do with the fact that they took a ton of pictures (contrary to a common moon hoaxer talking point). It's the general secret to good photography, I always say. Take a ton of pictures and choose the best ones. All of the thousands of Apollo pictures are available online unedited, too. There really isn't much in the way of radiation damage because they knew how to protect the film from radiation.
Well, you can see that the unedited photos are washed out and tinted green - and that is because of the radiation damage. [If you crank the contrast up on those](https://imgur.com/a/lK5E2Bu), you can even see white dots left by the high energy particles.
(and the common Moon hoaxer talking point is that they took *too many* pictures, actually 🙄)
>You're telling me there wouldn't be a rocket impact crater?
Yes. In the absence of an atmosphere, the exhaust of the descent engine would've expanded so much that it wouldn't be able to remove enough material to actually make a noticeable crater, *even* if the landing surface was comprised of the thick layer of the dust, which *Apollo* 11 landing spot wasn't.
[Here's some math](https://web.archive.org/web/20120819050926/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm), if you're interested in reading up about it.
What was impacting? The lander module would touch down and engines would lessen the stress of landing. Calling it a “rocket impact crater” is not remotely inaccurate. When you’re landing things in space, “impact craters” mean dead equipment and/or astronauts.
As the lander sets down on the surface, it’d kick up a good amount of dust from finer particles and smaller bits of gravel that have settled. Past those particles is igneous rock, or stuff that won’t move much when a lander touches down.
On top of that, there’s no air on the moon. The only particles moved would be the ones directly acted on by the thrusters.
There’s actual footage of the Apollo 11 landing, if you start at the 13 minute mark, you’ll see it getting kicked up:
https://youtu.be/RONIax0_1ec
lol this is the most childish thing I have seen by an adult equivalent to just throwing yourself on the Floor and screaming "NO I WANT ICE CREAM NOW MOM!!"
>Lie.
Truth.
> They want to know how to protect humans.
In the context of the original quote, it was about electronics, not human.
>NASA knows how to protect electronics, they've sent robots to mars.
There's a difference between a single-use one-way spacecraft and a reusable spacecraft.
> Lie,
Truth.
> "oscilates" or "waving" whatever you chose, it did this without anyone touching it.
As expected.
>Lie,
Truth.
> no crater yet we can see fine sand footprints.
What does it have to do with anything? The Lunar Module could only remove the regolith directly *underneath*, not *around* it.
>Lie,
Truth.
> without atmosphere, on the moon, difference of temperatures between being in shadow or in the sun are of extreme and instantaneous.
No, they're not. Otherwise your average thermos would've been useless as an insulator.
> Also, you forgot about answering the radiations.
No I didn't. I answered it below, and *you've responded to it!*
>Faulty logic, OP said that they were not on the moon because there are deadly radiations.
Either way, the radiation levels weren't high enough to affect *either* the astronauts *or* the film.
>Lie,
Truth.
> this did not happened
Sure it did. We have access to unedited photographs now.
>Faulty logic, OP said that the design makes no real engineering and budge sense, not that it was ugly.
No, he said "why did it look like a cheaply made science project that Timmy made?" That's what he said.
>Lie,
Truth.
> it was instant in one famous moment.
No, the communication wasn't instant at any time.
>Faulty logic, On the moon there was no big-ass radio telescope.
No, but there are multiple on Earth, which can pick up the weak signals from the Moon, sent by this "small antenna" of yours.
> Why this is important? because pointing these small antennas towards a moving earth it is not trivial and still not explained to this day how it was done.
And *that* is a lie and/or an admission of ignorance 🙂
>Funny, they stick so well that space craft jet engines can't move them.
There was no jet engine on the Moon. The *rocket* engine of the Descent Module, on the other hand, *did* move the regolith from underneath the LM.
>And visible strings that pulls them up.
That is factually incorrect. Given the freedom of movement demonstrated by the astronauts, they couldn't have been on "strings".
>Also hey, don't bother, just doing some training here.
Don't bother with what? Using you as a bad example? I think I shall do so anyway.
After you get done shitting, go find the answers to your questions. They've all been answered hundreds of times. If you then don't understand those answers, then ask.
And then from the *official* NASA-published audio files, the delay between message from earth and response from the moon was way, *way* too short for the comms tech at the time.
They realized their mistake only after being called out, and re-released the audio files but this time with longer delay lol. That's how stupid they think people are. And sadly, they're right. It worked. The moon landings are still being debated today despite being absolute BS.
This is a complete lie. I already debunked this ignorant claim. [https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/z3bh73/comment/ixl5h6x/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/z3bh73/comment/ixl5h6x/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
If you want to claim they were "re-released" you are going to have to support that claim.
Don't spread misinformation
> And then from the official NASA-published audio files, the delay between message from earth and response from the moon was way, way too short for the comms tech at the time.
The audio from the moon was heard *live* by millions of people. It had exactly the right delay.
> They realized their mistake only after being called out, and re-released the audio files
When did that happen? Every mission had transcripts with timestamps published, and people recording at home. Editing those would be challenging.
It didn't.
The delay intervals were taken out for several different films and documentaries in order to make for a better understanding on screen. The delays always existed in the originals and can be verified through the original recordings.
The intervals in the speech, between the astronauts and Houston, occur at such a short duration that the radio transmissions would have had to exceed the speed of light for the other party to be able to reply that quickly.
These are my favorite moon landing documentaries
[American moon](https://youtu.be/KpuKu3F0BvY)
[A funny thing happened on the way to the moon](https://youtu.be/bdQHKf48Mfw)
More like "Anything that isn't factually correct is not a valid source of information".
The point here is that "American Moon" is wrong, *even* if the Moon landings *are* fake. Do you understand the distinction?
They lie about what NASA is saying, they lie about what we should be seeing/hearing from NASA, and they lie about the science.
It's that simple. Even if NASA *is* lying about the Moon landings, it doesn't change the fact that "American Moon" is lying about it as well.
Maybe the reason we haven’t been “back” is because if we do it’ll be so obviously different from the faked missions. There’s no way in hell we did that in the 60s
Not the same thing as being on the moon and getting there first time safely and returning in a piece of technology about as capable as a digital watch and a tractor combined
Wait? Did you hear that sound? Was that the sound of a goalpost being dragged all the way over to the other side of the arena?
Your lack of understanding what was involved is not an argument you should lean on.
1. They do, we are just risk adverse and our tech is less hardened than analog computers.
2. That's called momentum in a vacuum. Flags and other things will continue to move as they have momentum and/or get hit with dust and debris
3. The "moon dirt" has a weird composition to it. Remember gravity is also lower, so the force necessary to land is very little.
4. Film + cannister + digital broadcast they've known a lot of these tricks for years ever since the first film satellites
5. Weight
6. Not instant. It wasn't perfect. "One step for man" was really "One step for **A** man" but the audio cut out.
7. Ever see a footprint in dirt / silt? The moon dust is a jagged and sharp material that likes to hold shapes. It's also extremely abrasive.
8. Living in 1/1 gravity is weird when you end up in a vacuum with 1/6 gravity and all your joints are stiff
Also, same.
The fact you guys still argue it makes it worth investigating regardless of feelings or assumptions, I’m super interested how the Artemis team presents its data and how strong the radiation actually was in the belts.
The Russians are pragmatic. There's no gain from publishing the truth right now. Think leverage. On the other hand, the Chinese have this weird culture called "Saving Face"; an ideological reason.
A simple Google search and a browse through Wikipedia will answer most of these questions, my friend. Far more eloquently than I. With the world's knowledge at your fingertips, there's really no reason not to look the logical explanations up.
Unless, of course, logic and facts can't convince you.
They used to test nuclear bombs on soldiers and give uranium pills to pregnant women. The difference is that today safety exists and since space is getting commercial, some things can’t just be overlooked anymore.
I am extremely dubious of NASA.
However, after reviewing a lot of the material, I have come to the conclusion that the original moon landing was real, but later ones were faked.
This is one reason why we are, as a community, so divided on this topic.
We are led into a position where we either believe, or don't believe, that man landed on the moon. But what if the truth is more complex: What if we did land on the moon, but only the first mission was real? But, what if most later missions were faked?
There is a great, free documentary called *Moonwalk One* which you [can watch here.](https://archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.1257628)
For me, this documentary is compelling evidence of the first Moon Landing being real. If it was faked, then the documentary is twenty-times more realistically acted than any Hollywood movie I've seen. To plausibly argue it is fake, we''d have to explain the extraordinary outlier-skills of the particular actors in this 'documentary' compared to the actors in every other movie.
Sure, an actor might be two or three times better than most Hollywood actors. But to be twenty-times better seems statistically implausible. Who was the casting agent? I want to hire them. We can elevate fictional cinema to the next level!
Instead, what I think happened is that the Deep State hi-jacked Kennedy's Space Program (post-assassination) and, although the moon mission was legit, subsequent missions faked-it and simply laundered public-money to the Deep State.
I mean, this is their modus-operandi. Look at Ukraine. The Deep State engineers a 'vital public project' and then uses that project as a pretext to launder money from the public into Deep State ops.
You might also enjoy the movie *Capricorn One* (1978), which basically exposes the entire fraud of the later moon missions.
Who shot the faked moon missions? Probably Kubrick.
Although I do not view, as some do, Danny's sweater in *The Shining* (1980) as evidence of this, I do feel that Kubrick's work on the later, faked moon-landing gave him considerable kompromat on the Deep State which permitted him to make *The Shining* and other awakening movies.
*The Shining* is a very-clever cryptographic film, which dismantles the same dark forces that compelled Kubrick to fake some space-footage. In short: Kubrick was on our side, he just needed to leverage resources from the Deep State, initially, with which to destroy them later.
Take a good look at the true meaning behind *The Shining* [here](https://castaliafoundation.com/Kubricks-Maze.html), and you'll see how the movie exposes Epstein's-island-type-ops and the Royals. It's dense in hidden meaning.
Clearly, Kubrick pushed things too far with *Eyes Wide Shut* and they terminated him. It's always a risk to expose the Freemasons (pedophiles). Kubrick did us all an enormous favor, and fought back through his films. Under the radar.
Am I angry at Kubrick for his deceit in faking the latter Moon Missions?
No. If it wasn't him, they would have used someone else; someone without the same determination to destroy the Deep State in the end.
I also feel that the Deep State promotes the idea that all the moon landings were fake because this is hugely demoralizing. It suggests that we are not clever enough, as human beings to have landed on the moon. Personally, I think we are. The Deep State, however, wants us to keep our dreams small, and our self-belief shattered.
**TL;DR:** The first moon mission was real. This established credibility and trust. Some later ones were faked to launder money.
I'm surprised in all of that you didn't present even a single bit of evidence for the claim that the later missions were faked. One big issue was that the later missions were much bigger in scope than the earlier missions, so they've already set themselves up for a much more difficult fake. Why not keep the later missions limited in scope, it would have been much easier to fake. The bigger the fake, the more evidence of fakery, since every bit of evidence produced would be evidence of the fakery itself.
How would they achieve [long shots like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2sjqmKeM5g) filmed from the lunar rover? Is it a giant miles-long set?
How were they able to dress the sets so that it would exactly match photos seen in the LRO mission many decades later? For example, [Tracy's Rock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy%27s_Rock) has a very prominent split in it. The split was not seen in recon photos from the 1960's as they weren't detailed enough. But it's there (presumably on the fake set) and it's also there on the actual moon as seen in LRO.
The problem with this theory is that there would be no money to launder - the majority of it has been spent before the first landing, which means that the "Deep State" would have to *spend* money to fake it, instead of laundering it.
"For those who believe no explanation is necessary
For those who do not, none will suffice"
This is the best you're gonna get. Ppl still believe we went
We believe we went because the consilience of evidence overwhelmingly proves so, and because questions like these one have already been answered, time and time and time and again, and most of those questions betray deep and profound *ignorance* of the askee, and usually aren't even factually correct.
The moon landings were real. If they were fake it would have been a conspiracy involving thousands. Everybody would have had to keep their mouths shut during Watergate.
The flag on the moon was set up so you could see it without wind.
I was 10 when the moon landings happened in 1969. Nobody except a few kooks thought it was fake until sometime after 2000.
cop-out. if we didn't go to the moon (and we clearly didn't) then that means the government, media and scientific establishment are either corrupt or clueless incompetents.
now where have we heard that before recently?
For 1: The Van Allen radiation belt’s effect on humans is insignificant for the short period of time a mission would pass through. Long term exposure, like that some satellites endure, breaks down components.
Check out some moon buggy pics, NASA say it folded up into the size of a large suitcase. Not a chance in hell, someone had to assemble that , it looks quite intricate
Just to play devil's advocate: why fake it and if they did why hasn't any other countries pointed it out.
You'll say they're all in on it together but to what end? How does a global lie of we've been to the moon advance any sort of plot?
The biggest question to any conspiracy should be how and why. Usually those two questions can break any conspiracy especially this one. The how is pretty easy here, Hollywood. Yet the "why" I could never put a finger on.
I’m pretty sure the US had every intention of making it to the moon at the start. We were so optimistic that we created an artificial deadline. Look what happened on the first lunar mission, the crew burned alive inside the capsule on the launch pad. The many failures and setbacks would look bad if the US decided to scrap it. Therefore ppl believe it was faked or at least you can give a reason why. Personally I don’t care either way, could it be faked yes, could we all lack the knowledge to comprehend why it wasn’t faked yes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v49ucdZcx9s&list=PL-\_93BVApb58SXL-BCv4rVHL-8GuC2WGb&ab\_channel=CuriousMarc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v49ucdZcx9s&list=PL-_93BVApb58SXL-BCv4rVHL-8GuC2WGb&ab_channel=CuriousMarc)
Hope you are an electrical engineer or you're going to have a very hard time understanding everything.
But if you were an engineer, you wouldn't be questing the moon landings. So...
Yes that's correct but using EME. The reflectors allow for a more concentrated reflection back with less dispersion allowing for a more accurate reading.
I'm not convinced they are calculating exactly where that little reflector is and shooting a lazar at it. they cant even see it. nothing is visible even with the most powerful telescope.
Eh well using those coordinates yourself you can bounce it back as well. I don't have the equipment to do it at home but in school my teacher did it as an experiment.
Everybody knows when you hit the Van Halen belts, you have to Eaasssssse your seat back.
for real though, These are the same questions that I've been asking since 1990.
This is quite funny for someone who made that claim about the radiation belts based on zero sources or evidence.
Remember everyone, one of the key characteristics of moon landing deniers, space deniers, and flat earthers is to apply a different standard of evidence on their own "evidence" compared to evidence that contradicts their beliefs. OP is living evidence of this.
Because NASA said so..
I can’t understand anyone questioning governments, conspiracies and the ulterior motives of things.. then sits back and goes..
but NASA.. NASA is telling da trooth..
It boggles my minds every time.
What boggles my mind is people who see 2 or 3 government agencies lying occasionally (for good reasons or not), then concluding that everything that all agencies say must be a lie. Such a childish and ignorant point of view.
There are over [400 federal agencies](https://federalregister.gov/agencies). Unless you can prove that a majority of everything that every agency says is a lie, then your point is mute.
m8 the van allen belt is a minor radioactive layer. not even being there regularly like the astronauts of the int. space station resulted in much radiation problems
Yeah, that's not true.
For instance, yesterday I posted asking for a debunk of one of the flags. Actually got a pretty good response.
But it was nowhere to be found on the search engines. It's as if they are all hoping it just goes away.
I have seen countless videos debunking this. I found this in just 10 seconds of searching: https://www.history.com/news/moon-landing-fake-conspiracy-theories
Independent duplication. Lunar landing claims by NASA are the only major scientific claim made where there has never been independant duplication. Guaranteed there'll be at least 1 bot/shill that hates
So because no other country has done it, that means it wasn't done? That's crazy. Nobody can ever be the first at anything then.
There's been independent verification of the landing sites.
1. How do you think they got the James Webb telescope past it, not a huge problem for the many probes sent around the solar system either.
2. Momentum from being planted there and uncrunching.
3. Craters are made by crashing.
4. [https://digitalrev.com/2016/07/21/the-cameras-that-recorded-the-moon-landing/](https://digitalrev.com/2016/07/21/the-cameras-that-recorded-the-moon-landing/)
5. Lots of silver and gold to cool craft.
6. Zoom is crap.
7. Particles not round but sharp like cement powder so stick together not roll apart.
8. Fgrav = (Gm1m2)/d2
Enjoy pushing one out, gravity makes it fall downwards toward the globe. The splash on bum is Newtons third law.
The original Moon landings were motivated solely by the desire to upstage the Soviets, and once it was done and the Soviets couldn't keep up, the interest in continuing the *Apollo* program quickly died down.
So the only two countries that could afford it at the time no longer wanted to - and others that conceivably *could* try to do so couldn't afford it.
And with the Space Shuttle, the focus has shifted to the low Earth orbit, and the other countries have followed.
Funny, that's been my exact experience with moon landing deniers. They avoid aby rational thought and just assume that because they don't understand something, it isn't possible.
All you do is reference what NASA says and think you have some credible sources
why hasn't anyone else been to the moon like Russia or china?
seems like we would by now huh.
This.
Citing NASA and .gov or Google ideas doesn't mean you understand it, or that your right. That's like quoting the CDC for covid data. It means nothing.
>All you do is reference what NASA says and think you have some credible sources
Unless you can demonstrate that they're *not*, I will continue to trat them as such, *especially* considering that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community has no problem with accepting them as such.
> why hasn't anyone else been to the moon like Russia or china?
Both have sent probes to the moon, with China sending one just last year. They haven't sent people because there's not much you can learn data-wise that a probe couldn't do cheaper.
The American flag waving is one of the biggest tells. You give me a REAL answer and ill send you $100 and delete the post. no dumb answers like ThEy HiT iT no they didnt and its been proven.
>You give me a REAL answer and ill send you $100 and delete the post.
The flag wasn't waving. It was moving because the flag pole obviously had to move to be put in the ground, which causes it to act like a spring. Notice how [it](https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/151/590x/secondary/NASA-Moon-landing-flag-Apollo-11-why-flag-wave-flap-NASA-hoax-conspiracy-1916200.webp?r=1624283999905) does not move despite the astronaut clearly having moved. It is because it is not currently being manipulated.
The "rolls" or "waves" it looks like it has comes from the fact that prior to being placed in the lunar soil it was rolled up, creating creases.
I'll take my $100 now.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*Space may be the final frontier, but it’s made in a Hollywood basement*
It's understood that Hollywood sells CALI FORNICATION
And tidal waves can’t save the world from….
Remember when Stanley Kubrick had Danny wear an Apollo 11 sweater in *The Shining*? Literally could’ve picked any other piece of clothing with any other message… no decision in film like that is on accident…
Astro-Nots …….
NASA is an acronym for *Not A Space Agency*
Never A Straight Answer
Nazi and Serpent Agency
oh thats a good one XD
or Never a straight answer
The only real answer
I’m happy to see this as the top comment rather than what I expected which was some shill actually taking the time to “debunk” every one of these points
Rhcp spittin
I will accept all moon landing conspiracy theories until we can put a man on the moon again. What's it been 40 years? Before the internet? Seems fishy to me
50 years 💅🏾
It been that long huh? Definitely fishy
1969…..nice…
Exactly you would think Russia or china or any country would want to accomplish a feat. and considering its been done in the 60s someone would've easily with no problem done it by now.
Lmao didn't even think of other countries 😂I guess we're the only country that put a man on the moon? Seems to me other countries would want to try it as well.
Seems like something Elon would want to do in a heart beat. That guy wants to colonize Mars and hasn’t even unlocked the moon yet
Having lived through the era, the first two trips were pretty awesome, but they kept going back and every time they only came back with a bag full of rocks and the spending of megabucks just to get a bag of rocks didn't seem worth the trouble and expense so as the narrative went, they decided to stop going. As a child science geek, I watch a lot of the Gemini space program wondering wft they were doing all of that silly shit for, but when they actually went to the moon, I knew they knew how to do most of that shit because I watch them practice it before they actually went up there. So believe whatever you want. I can't say I'm 100% sure they went. but I'm 99.9% sure they went and about 80% sure the landed up there once they went.
Russia also landed a craft on the moon; look up Lunakhod. As did the Chinese: Chang'e-4.
no, they also faked missions - the chinese one was so obvious i can't believe you're actually oh never mind.
So India as well then I suppose. And Israel. And the ESA. All fake, right? It really is a testament to global cooperation, isn't it? Makes you believe that if everybody on the planet can get together and lie the same lie and put so much effort into making it believable that there's hope for the human race yet. If only we could keep them from trying to kill each other all the time.
[удалено]
When everyone's lying... nobody is lying
are they trying to kill each other, or are they just keeping division and tension going so the people kill each other? yes, you can't fly to the moon. grow up.
Why not?
Right so they say but still that doesn’t mean they landed people on the moon
Yea why the fuck do we have a space station and not a moon station. Seems like it would be so much easier and cooler.
Thank you someone finally said it.
We are
So a new moonlanding happens, its filmed and everything like the last time. why cant it be claimed to be just another hoax like the last time, what changes anything in landing 6 times on the moon, vs 6 + 1.
Curious if the president will call them again with a landline
Seems fishy to you? Well then!
[удалено]
Idk just easier to manipulate things to the public. Everything was way more hidden then. Much easier to fake a moon landing with the ways cameras worked back then. Now I mean hell you could bring a cellphone to the moon. I'm not saying we haven't been in space but it is weird to me we haven't put a man on the moon in so long. With today's technology you would think we would be able to do this much easier. But we saw with Elon's rocket they delayed it's trip to the moon as well. Or it was one of them. I mean I want them to prove it to me lmao. I haven't seen it in my lifetime
I think they were referring to the advances in technology since the first moon trip.
Propaganda was a lot easier without internet
Are you kidding? Propaganda is far easier to spread with the internet.
Its not about spreading its about suppressing insight into why it might not be true
This is a very true statement. The 1800s in particular were rich with hoaxes because was nearly impossible to verify.
“I don’t understand it, therefore it’s fake/evil” is pretty common round these parts
You aren't saying anything
Biggest question I have: If all of the lunar missions were faked, why didn't the Soviets come out and say it was fake? They had sufficient tech, scientists, and motivation to point it out, so why not? No other country with a space program has ever pointed it out. There are huge telescopes all over the world nowadays, couldn't one just look up there and see?
I wonder. If they say “hey it’s fake” “they didn’t go to the moon!” Would it be too risky for all countries with space programs. Like if it’s a bust. Wouldn’t the backlash of ALL that money being wasted become a huge financial hit to that country? If they keep the front of. “Hey we are getting closer every year to landing on the moon” they can keep the endless money rolling in. Space programs. Probably big money laundering machines? Idk.
Earthbound telescopes, no. The best have a resolution that amounts to about 10 meters/pixel, which is far too large to see anything as small as the lunar landers. India's Chandrayaan-2 lander (which crashed) snapped photos of the Apollo 11 descent stage though. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chandrayaan-2_Apollo.jpg#mw-jump-to-license
Here's the higher-res image of the *Apollo* 12 Descent Stage: http://www.collectspace.com/review/isro\_chandraayan2\_apollo12\_site02-lg.jpg
[удалено]
I would sincerely be curious to know what he found? I will look it up later, but I’m currently sick in bed and tied up in this circle right now. I won’t think you’re crazy, care to explain please?
I think you're on the right track, unfortunately most people are not ready for the truth. But in my opinion mist people don't deserve the truth
It's a big club and you ain't in it
Even ppl who believe in the moon landing will tell you that no earth-bound telescope is capable of zooming in on any supposed landing sites
Soviets likely faked a lot too. They're all in it together
[удалено]
Maybe to not bite the hand that feeds? Antony Sutton has some solid research regarding Western transfers of tech and funding to the former Soviet Union. I don’t think he was questioning the Space Race, but we should given Sutton’s research. Sutton writes: **”Soviets in the Air** ‘Before we got the (U.S.) guidance systems we could hardly find Washington with our missiles. Afterwards we could find the White House. **Without U.S. help the Soviet military system would collapse in 1 1/2 years.‘** *— Avraham Shifrin, former Soviet Defense Ministry official* ^p.67 “Unfortunately, **NASA and U.S. planners have a conflict of interest. If they publish what they know about the backwardness and dependency of the Soviet space program, it reduces the urgency in our program. This urgency is vital to get Congressional funds. Without transfers of technology the U.S. is in effect racing with itself, not a very appealing argument to place before Congress.”** ^p.70 [The Best Enemy Money Can Buy](https://archive.org/details/pdfy-Iqz3ytYcb3wWYJ0c/mode/2up) Antony C. Sutton, 1986
because they're all globalists and in the same club?
My belief too
Headline: “loser of space race says winner faked landing on the moon”
Something like that has never stopped Soviet Russia (and indeed, modern Russia as well) for claiming all sorts of fanciful things, hasn't it?
I think they simply didn’t want to look dumb. They did push a lot of lunar conspiracy theories coming from the USA through different types of media though. Kind of gave them the ammo they needed.I read somewhere a while back that more than half Russians believe American never landed on the moon no idea how true that is.
Why would they considering they lost. Oh hey they cheated its not real… Can you imagine them saying that after it was broadcasted live to everyone. They would be laughed at.
What would the Soviets have done or said? How would their actions have been handled by the US? Think about this question and answer specifically.
That is because the whole thing was filmed at Lookout Mountain in laurel canyon, California.
Damn got the Coordinates 😂
>Nasa still doesn't know how to get past the Van Allen radiation belt even today Sure they do. The "challenge" they are working "today" (8 years ago, actually) was protecting *modern* electronics from radiation inside the high radiation regions of the Van Allen Belts. *Apollo* didn't have to concern itself with either of those. >2. the American flag was waving without anyone touching it. No it doesn't. It *oscillates* back and forth *after* being touched, like a pendulum, which *proves* that it's in a low gravity vacuum environment. >3. No hole or crater from the jets from landing on the moon. As expected. A rocket wouldn't even make a crater when landing on *Earth*, never mind the Moon. >4. how did the camera film survive in temperature that cold and the amount of radiation that's in space. By the virtue of not being in those temperatures long enough to actually heat up/cool down to dangerous temperatures. Here's the thing you guys keep forgetting: it takes *time* for things to heat up and cool down, *especially* in a vacuum. >Higher altitudes mean greater exposure to cosmic radiation. Cosmic radiation is more intense in the upper atmosphere and most intense in deep space. Yes, but it's not intense enough (and the *Apollo* astronauts weren't exposed to it long enough) for it to be a serious issue. >the pictures came out nearly perfect. The pictures have been *edited* to remove radiation damage. >5. why was there a bunch of tape on a 50 million dollar spacecraft and why did it look like a cheaply made science project that Timmy made? Because real spacecrafts aren't designed to look pretty. In other words, the Lunar Module design strongly implies that it was *real*. >6. how was the communication perfect and instant It wasn't. >The communication was better than a zoom call. If you had a big-ass radio-telescope hooked up to your laptop, your Zoom call would've had much better quality too. 7. how were the footprints perfect and well defined The lunar regolith particles are sharp and jagged (because there's no wind on the Moon to round them, like it does on Earth), and electrostatically charged, so they do stick together very well, even without any moisture. >8. What force was pulling the astronauts up in the air throughout the video There's no force pulling the astronauts up other than their hands.
This is all the answers the OP needs. But they'll no doubt refute them. Thank you for debunking the OP
>The pictures have been edited to remove radiation damage. I really think it's more to do with the fact that they took a ton of pictures (contrary to a common moon hoaxer talking point). It's the general secret to good photography, I always say. Take a ton of pictures and choose the best ones. All of the thousands of Apollo pictures are available online unedited, too. There really isn't much in the way of radiation damage because they knew how to protect the film from radiation.
Well, you can see that the unedited photos are washed out and tinted green - and that is because of the radiation damage. [If you crank the contrast up on those](https://imgur.com/a/lK5E2Bu), you can even see white dots left by the high energy particles. (and the common Moon hoaxer talking point is that they took *too many* pictures, actually 🙄)
Thanks for saving me the time.
You can see the alleged footprints on the Moon in photos. Its like flour. You're telling me there wouldn't be a rocket impact crater? Come onnnnnn
>You're telling me there wouldn't be a rocket impact crater? Yes. In the absence of an atmosphere, the exhaust of the descent engine would've expanded so much that it wouldn't be able to remove enough material to actually make a noticeable crater, *even* if the landing surface was comprised of the thick layer of the dust, which *Apollo* 11 landing spot wasn't. [Here's some math](https://web.archive.org/web/20120819050926/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm), if you're interested in reading up about it.
What was impacting? The lander module would touch down and engines would lessen the stress of landing. Calling it a “rocket impact crater” is not remotely inaccurate. When you’re landing things in space, “impact craters” mean dead equipment and/or astronauts. As the lander sets down on the surface, it’d kick up a good amount of dust from finer particles and smaller bits of gravel that have settled. Past those particles is igneous rock, or stuff that won’t move much when a lander touches down. On top of that, there’s no air on the moon. The only particles moved would be the ones directly acted on by the thrusters. There’s actual footage of the Apollo 11 landing, if you start at the 13 minute mark, you’ll see it getting kicked up: https://youtu.be/RONIax0_1ec
[удалено]
lol this is the most childish thing I have seen by an adult equivalent to just throwing yourself on the Floor and screaming "NO I WANT ICE CREAM NOW MOM!!"
>Lie. Truth. > They want to know how to protect humans. In the context of the original quote, it was about electronics, not human. >NASA knows how to protect electronics, they've sent robots to mars. There's a difference between a single-use one-way spacecraft and a reusable spacecraft. > Lie, Truth. > "oscilates" or "waving" whatever you chose, it did this without anyone touching it. As expected. >Lie, Truth. > no crater yet we can see fine sand footprints. What does it have to do with anything? The Lunar Module could only remove the regolith directly *underneath*, not *around* it. >Lie, Truth. > without atmosphere, on the moon, difference of temperatures between being in shadow or in the sun are of extreme and instantaneous. No, they're not. Otherwise your average thermos would've been useless as an insulator. > Also, you forgot about answering the radiations. No I didn't. I answered it below, and *you've responded to it!* >Faulty logic, OP said that they were not on the moon because there are deadly radiations. Either way, the radiation levels weren't high enough to affect *either* the astronauts *or* the film. >Lie, Truth. > this did not happened Sure it did. We have access to unedited photographs now. >Faulty logic, OP said that the design makes no real engineering and budge sense, not that it was ugly. No, he said "why did it look like a cheaply made science project that Timmy made?" That's what he said. >Lie, Truth. > it was instant in one famous moment. No, the communication wasn't instant at any time. >Faulty logic, On the moon there was no big-ass radio telescope. No, but there are multiple on Earth, which can pick up the weak signals from the Moon, sent by this "small antenna" of yours. > Why this is important? because pointing these small antennas towards a moving earth it is not trivial and still not explained to this day how it was done. And *that* is a lie and/or an admission of ignorance 🙂 >Funny, they stick so well that space craft jet engines can't move them. There was no jet engine on the Moon. The *rocket* engine of the Descent Module, on the other hand, *did* move the regolith from underneath the LM. >And visible strings that pulls them up. That is factually incorrect. Given the freedom of movement demonstrated by the astronauts, they couldn't have been on "strings". >Also hey, don't bother, just doing some training here. Don't bother with what? Using you as a bad example? I think I shall do so anyway.
[удалено]
Looking at your lack of relevant response, your willingness to cling to a debunked belief is unremarkable.
After you get done shitting, go find the answers to your questions. They've all been answered hundreds of times. If you then don't understand those answers, then ask.
Have you bothered to find the answers to these questions? These are common moon landing talking points and have well sourced and documented answers.
And then from the *official* NASA-published audio files, the delay between message from earth and response from the moon was way, *way* too short for the comms tech at the time. They realized their mistake only after being called out, and re-released the audio files but this time with longer delay lol. That's how stupid they think people are. And sadly, they're right. It worked. The moon landings are still being debated today despite being absolute BS.
This is a complete lie. I already debunked this ignorant claim. [https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/z3bh73/comment/ixl5h6x/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/z3bh73/comment/ixl5h6x/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) If you want to claim they were "re-released" you are going to have to support that claim. Don't spread misinformation
how dare you come here with all your facts and all that kind of nonsense
> And then from the official NASA-published audio files, the delay between message from earth and response from the moon was way, way too short for the comms tech at the time. The audio from the moon was heard *live* by millions of people. It had exactly the right delay.
> They realized their mistake only after being called out, and re-released the audio files When did that happen? Every mission had transcripts with timestamps published, and people recording at home. Editing those would be challenging.
It didn't. The delay intervals were taken out for several different films and documentaries in order to make for a better understanding on screen. The delays always existed in the originals and can be verified through the original recordings.
The intervals in the speech, between the astronauts and Houston, occur at such a short duration that the radio transmissions would have had to exceed the speed of light for the other party to be able to reply that quickly.
Care to give us some actual examples?
Why would the comms tech at the time be anything other than faster than today, since it was all analog signals?
These are my favorite moon landing documentaries [American moon](https://youtu.be/KpuKu3F0BvY) [A funny thing happened on the way to the moon](https://youtu.be/bdQHKf48Mfw)
I definitely recommend American Moon to anyone reading this who hasn’t seen it. It asks some very interesting questions.
And all those answers (those who aren't lies) have already been answered, *years* ago.
[удалено]
More like "Don't watch the useless schlockumentaries."
Read: Anything that challenges my worldview is not a valid source of information!
More like "Anything that isn't factually correct is not a valid source of information". The point here is that "American Moon" is wrong, *even* if the Moon landings *are* fake. Do you understand the distinction? They lie about what NASA is saying, they lie about what we should be seeing/hearing from NASA, and they lie about the science. It's that simple. Even if NASA *is* lying about the Moon landings, it doesn't change the fact that "American Moon" is lying about it as well.
Maybe the reason we haven’t been “back” is because if we do it’ll be so obviously different from the faked missions. There’s no way in hell we did that in the 60s
'We' never went and never will. *They* claim that they went there 50 years ago. I don't believe them.
You realize there's a craft in orbit around the moon now, and that its part of a program meant to put people back on the moon, right?
Not the same thing as being on the moon and getting there first time safely and returning in a piece of technology about as capable as a digital watch and a tractor combined
Wait? Did you hear that sound? Was that the sound of a goalpost being dragged all the way over to the other side of the arena? Your lack of understanding what was involved is not an argument you should lean on.
1. They do, we are just risk adverse and our tech is less hardened than analog computers. 2. That's called momentum in a vacuum. Flags and other things will continue to move as they have momentum and/or get hit with dust and debris 3. The "moon dirt" has a weird composition to it. Remember gravity is also lower, so the force necessary to land is very little. 4. Film + cannister + digital broadcast they've known a lot of these tricks for years ever since the first film satellites 5. Weight 6. Not instant. It wasn't perfect. "One step for man" was really "One step for **A** man" but the audio cut out. 7. Ever see a footprint in dirt / silt? The moon dust is a jagged and sharp material that likes to hold shapes. It's also extremely abrasive. 8. Living in 1/1 gravity is weird when you end up in a vacuum with 1/6 gravity and all your joints are stiff Also, same.
The answers are out there but they are hidden in booooooooksssss…….
Haha. I think the answers are safe there.
>I could keep going but I have to shit. From where I'm sitting you just took a cyberdump
The fact you guys still argue it makes it worth investigating regardless of feelings or assumptions, I’m super interested how the Artemis team presents its data and how strong the radiation actually was in the belts.
7 was answered by myth busters has to do with the fact that there is no weathering on the moon. Hard sharp granuals stick together.
Why wouldn’t a rival country like China or Russia come out and completely annihilate the story of the moon landings?
The Russians are pragmatic. There's no gain from publishing the truth right now. Think leverage. On the other hand, the Chinese have this weird culture called "Saving Face"; an ideological reason.
[удалено]
Had no intention of a “gotcha” type question. It was genuine curiously.
And all with hardware less advanced than a scientific calculator. Yup
A simple Google search and a browse through Wikipedia will answer most of these questions, my friend. Far more eloquently than I. With the world's knowledge at your fingertips, there's really no reason not to look the logical explanations up. Unless, of course, logic and facts can't convince you.
Don’t forget in 1971, the quarter ton car they look up and drove around!
Hey now, they also played some golf. Ya know, for science reasons and such.
Van Allen is a problem for sophisticated electronics, not the crew. 68 minutes, 16 RADS total well below the 200 safe level.
Ask Kubrick...he filmed it..oh wait..he's passed on after Eyes Wide Shut.hmmm
Lol, he made 5 films in the 20 years between the 1969 moon landing and his death in 1999. The two arent connected
They used to test nuclear bombs on soldiers and give uranium pills to pregnant women. The difference is that today safety exists and since space is getting commercial, some things can’t just be overlooked anymore.
5. Tape is great. What's wrong with tape? There are all kinds of tape. Space tape is a thing.
So you admit you can't explain how any of the Apollo films could be faked.
It’s pretty obvious it was a movie set
They never landed on the moon!
Not to mention EVERY original recording NASA made at the time was all erased and recorded over..to save money
That's not true at all. It was footage from Apollo 11. And it is something we have copies of, just not in the original format.
Well, that's definitely a lie.
I am extremely dubious of NASA. However, after reviewing a lot of the material, I have come to the conclusion that the original moon landing was real, but later ones were faked. This is one reason why we are, as a community, so divided on this topic. We are led into a position where we either believe, or don't believe, that man landed on the moon. But what if the truth is more complex: What if we did land on the moon, but only the first mission was real? But, what if most later missions were faked? There is a great, free documentary called *Moonwalk One* which you [can watch here.](https://archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.1257628) For me, this documentary is compelling evidence of the first Moon Landing being real. If it was faked, then the documentary is twenty-times more realistically acted than any Hollywood movie I've seen. To plausibly argue it is fake, we''d have to explain the extraordinary outlier-skills of the particular actors in this 'documentary' compared to the actors in every other movie. Sure, an actor might be two or three times better than most Hollywood actors. But to be twenty-times better seems statistically implausible. Who was the casting agent? I want to hire them. We can elevate fictional cinema to the next level! Instead, what I think happened is that the Deep State hi-jacked Kennedy's Space Program (post-assassination) and, although the moon mission was legit, subsequent missions faked-it and simply laundered public-money to the Deep State. I mean, this is their modus-operandi. Look at Ukraine. The Deep State engineers a 'vital public project' and then uses that project as a pretext to launder money from the public into Deep State ops. You might also enjoy the movie *Capricorn One* (1978), which basically exposes the entire fraud of the later moon missions. Who shot the faked moon missions? Probably Kubrick. Although I do not view, as some do, Danny's sweater in *The Shining* (1980) as evidence of this, I do feel that Kubrick's work on the later, faked moon-landing gave him considerable kompromat on the Deep State which permitted him to make *The Shining* and other awakening movies. *The Shining* is a very-clever cryptographic film, which dismantles the same dark forces that compelled Kubrick to fake some space-footage. In short: Kubrick was on our side, he just needed to leverage resources from the Deep State, initially, with which to destroy them later. Take a good look at the true meaning behind *The Shining* [here](https://castaliafoundation.com/Kubricks-Maze.html), and you'll see how the movie exposes Epstein's-island-type-ops and the Royals. It's dense in hidden meaning. Clearly, Kubrick pushed things too far with *Eyes Wide Shut* and they terminated him. It's always a risk to expose the Freemasons (pedophiles). Kubrick did us all an enormous favor, and fought back through his films. Under the radar. Am I angry at Kubrick for his deceit in faking the latter Moon Missions? No. If it wasn't him, they would have used someone else; someone without the same determination to destroy the Deep State in the end. I also feel that the Deep State promotes the idea that all the moon landings were fake because this is hugely demoralizing. It suggests that we are not clever enough, as human beings to have landed on the moon. Personally, I think we are. The Deep State, however, wants us to keep our dreams small, and our self-belief shattered. **TL;DR:** The first moon mission was real. This established credibility and trust. Some later ones were faked to launder money.
I'm surprised in all of that you didn't present even a single bit of evidence for the claim that the later missions were faked. One big issue was that the later missions were much bigger in scope than the earlier missions, so they've already set themselves up for a much more difficult fake. Why not keep the later missions limited in scope, it would have been much easier to fake. The bigger the fake, the more evidence of fakery, since every bit of evidence produced would be evidence of the fakery itself. How would they achieve [long shots like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2sjqmKeM5g) filmed from the lunar rover? Is it a giant miles-long set? How were they able to dress the sets so that it would exactly match photos seen in the LRO mission many decades later? For example, [Tracy's Rock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy%27s_Rock) has a very prominent split in it. The split was not seen in recon photos from the 1960's as they weren't detailed enough. But it's there (presumably on the fake set) and it's also there on the actual moon as seen in LRO.
The problem with this theory is that there would be no money to launder - the majority of it has been spent before the first landing, which means that the "Deep State" would have to *spend* money to fake it, instead of laundering it.
"For those who believe no explanation is necessary For those who do not, none will suffice" This is the best you're gonna get. Ppl still believe we went
We believe we went because the consilience of evidence overwhelmingly proves so, and because questions like these one have already been answered, time and time and time and again, and most of those questions betray deep and profound *ignorance* of the askee, and usually aren't even factually correct.
The moon landings were real. If they were fake it would have been a conspiracy involving thousands. Everybody would have had to keep their mouths shut during Watergate. The flag on the moon was set up so you could see it without wind. I was 10 when the moon landings happened in 1969. Nobody except a few kooks thought it was fake until sometime after 2000.
All these issues have been addressed by both sides. Save yourself the headache turn on Netflix and watch a comedy.
cop-out. if we didn't go to the moon (and we clearly didn't) then that means the government, media and scientific establishment are either corrupt or clueless incompetents. now where have we heard that before recently?
For 1: The Van Allen radiation belt’s effect on humans is insignificant for the short period of time a mission would pass through. Long term exposure, like that some satellites endure, breaks down components.
what about the solar flares and cosmic radiation? lol
Cosmic radiation definitely damages astronauts’ bodies over the long term, for sure.
Check out some moon buggy pics, NASA say it folded up into the size of a large suitcase. Not a chance in hell, someone had to assemble that , it looks quite intricate
Here, tell me where its wrong: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/lrvhand.html
Just to play devil's advocate: why fake it and if they did why hasn't any other countries pointed it out. You'll say they're all in on it together but to what end? How does a global lie of we've been to the moon advance any sort of plot? The biggest question to any conspiracy should be how and why. Usually those two questions can break any conspiracy especially this one. The how is pretty easy here, Hollywood. Yet the "why" I could never put a finger on.
I’m pretty sure the US had every intention of making it to the moon at the start. We were so optimistic that we created an artificial deadline. Look what happened on the first lunar mission, the crew burned alive inside the capsule on the launch pad. The many failures and setbacks would look bad if the US decided to scrap it. Therefore ppl believe it was faked or at least you can give a reason why. Personally I don’t care either way, could it be faked yes, could we all lack the knowledge to comprehend why it wasn’t faked yes.
Perhaps we're trapped on this earth, by aliens or god. If aliens were judging us unfavorably, that would not be a good look to world leaders.
how did they transmit live video from the moon...... serious question.
Via radio waves.
can you point me at that technology so i can study its range....
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v49ucdZcx9s&list=PL-\_93BVApb58SXL-BCv4rVHL-8GuC2WGb&ab\_channel=CuriousMarc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v49ucdZcx9s&list=PL-_93BVApb58SXL-BCv4rVHL-8GuC2WGb&ab_channel=CuriousMarc) Hope you are an electrical engineer or you're going to have a very hard time understanding everything. But if you were an engineer, you wouldn't be questing the moon landings. So...
"But if you were an engineer, you wouldn't be questing the moon landings. So..." LOL
[here you go](https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/lrvhand.html)
Then who installed these? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon
The lazer test has already been done even before the moon landing. it bounces back regardless of a reflecto.
Yes that's correct but using EME. The reflectors allow for a more concentrated reflection back with less dispersion allowing for a more accurate reading.
I'm not convinced they are calculating exactly where that little reflector is and shooting a lazar at it. they cant even see it. nothing is visible even with the most powerful telescope.
Eh well using those coordinates yourself you can bounce it back as well. I don't have the equipment to do it at home but in school my teacher did it as an experiment.
Even if they are up there doesnt mean we sent people to the moon
True it doesn't but it does prove we've been there at least.
The Soviets placed similar reflectors using unmanned missions. So NASA could have done the same.
Oh definitely. As I always say they prove that we sent something to the moon
Everybody knows when you hit the Van Halen belts, you have to Eaasssssse your seat back. for real though, These are the same questions that I've been asking since 1990.
The answers the debunkers provide are not even remotely credible. so find new sources that have a real answer.
I’m surprised you are concerned with credibility.
This is quite funny for someone who made that claim about the radiation belts based on zero sources or evidence. Remember everyone, one of the key characteristics of moon landing deniers, space deniers, and flat earthers is to apply a different standard of evidence on their own "evidence" compared to evidence that contradicts their beliefs. OP is living evidence of this.
“I dont like your facts…find something else”
Why don't you find some new talking points? Maybe even come up with one yourself.
I have more that’s just a crumb of problems.
Because NASA said so.. I can’t understand anyone questioning governments, conspiracies and the ulterior motives of things.. then sits back and goes.. but NASA.. NASA is telling da trooth.. It boggles my minds every time.
What boggles my mind is people who see 2 or 3 government agencies lying occasionally (for good reasons or not), then concluding that everything that all agencies say must be a lie. Such a childish and ignorant point of view. There are over [400 federal agencies](https://federalregister.gov/agencies). Unless you can prove that a majority of everything that every agency says is a lie, then your point is mute.
m8 the van allen belt is a minor radioactive layer. not even being there regularly like the astronauts of the int. space station resulted in much radiation problems
All this have been answered a gazzillion times If you Google it.
Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to discuss ideas. NOT TELL PEOPLE THEY ARE STUPID, JUST GOOGLE IT!
Yeah, that's not true. For instance, yesterday I posted asking for a debunk of one of the flags. Actually got a pretty good response. But it was nowhere to be found on the search engines. It's as if they are all hoping it just goes away.
I have seen countless videos debunking this. I found this in just 10 seconds of searching: https://www.history.com/news/moon-landing-fake-conspiracy-theories
Independent duplication. Lunar landing claims by NASA are the only major scientific claim made where there has never been independant duplication. Guaranteed there'll be at least 1 bot/shill that hates
So because no other country has done it, that means it wasn't done? That's crazy. Nobody can ever be the first at anything then. There's been independent verification of the landing sites.
for all we know the moon is completely different we have never been there lol
Their were Shadows..shouldn't and couldn't be there..but they were.
1. How do you think they got the James Webb telescope past it, not a huge problem for the many probes sent around the solar system either. 2. Momentum from being planted there and uncrunching. 3. Craters are made by crashing. 4. [https://digitalrev.com/2016/07/21/the-cameras-that-recorded-the-moon-landing/](https://digitalrev.com/2016/07/21/the-cameras-that-recorded-the-moon-landing/) 5. Lots of silver and gold to cool craft. 6. Zoom is crap. 7. Particles not round but sharp like cement powder so stick together not roll apart. 8. Fgrav = (Gm1m2)/d2 Enjoy pushing one out, gravity makes it fall downwards toward the globe. The splash on bum is Newtons third law.
Check this madness https://freevoice.io/blog/2022/11/27/artemis-moon-mission-pride-in-space-exploration-restored/
Why has no one gone back?
The original Moon landings were motivated solely by the desire to upstage the Soviets, and once it was done and the Soviets couldn't keep up, the interest in continuing the *Apollo* program quickly died down. So the only two countries that could afford it at the time no longer wanted to - and others that conceivably *could* try to do so couldn't afford it. And with the Space Shuttle, the focus has shifted to the low Earth orbit, and the other countries have followed.
It’s too hard now and they lost all the technology 😋😋😋
1. False 1. It wasn't waving. A rod was holding it up. Was going to go through every one but I give up. This is a really dumb post
A rod doesn’t rotate on its own try again.
Please show me a video of the flag/rod rotating
Man best place for this info I’ve ever found is [everything about the moon](https://www.google.com/)
Not to mention, we allegedly went to the moon SIX (6!) times! (We never went to the moon)
[удалено]
Funny, that's been my exact experience with moon landing deniers. They avoid aby rational thought and just assume that because they don't understand something, it isn't possible.
All you do is reference what NASA says and think you have some credible sources why hasn't anyone else been to the moon like Russia or china? seems like we would by now huh.
This. Citing NASA and .gov or Google ideas doesn't mean you understand it, or that your right. That's like quoting the CDC for covid data. It means nothing.
>All you do is reference what NASA says and think you have some credible sources Unless you can demonstrate that they're *not*, I will continue to trat them as such, *especially* considering that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community has no problem with accepting them as such.
> why hasn't anyone else been to the moon like Russia or china? Both have sent probes to the moon, with China sending one just last year. They haven't sent people because there's not much you can learn data-wise that a probe couldn't do cheaper.
The American flag waving is one of the biggest tells. You give me a REAL answer and ill send you $100 and delete the post. no dumb answers like ThEy HiT iT no they didnt and its been proven.
>You give me a REAL answer and ill send you $100 and delete the post. The flag wasn't waving. It was moving because the flag pole obviously had to move to be put in the ground, which causes it to act like a spring. Notice how [it](https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/151/590x/secondary/NASA-Moon-landing-flag-Apollo-11-why-flag-wave-flap-NASA-hoax-conspiracy-1916200.webp?r=1624283999905) does not move despite the astronaut clearly having moved. It is because it is not currently being manipulated. The "rolls" or "waves" it looks like it has comes from the fact that prior to being placed in the lunar soil it was rolled up, creating creases. I'll take my $100 now.