Why the Moon Landing was REAL!

[Bone Daddy]

Long, but really interesting video about NASA, video technology in the 1960s, and why the moon landing really happened.

[BlackoutCreature]

Of course the moon landing was real. If the Nazi's could land on it in 1942, then there's no reason why we shouldn't have been able to get to it in the 60's.

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler}What, you believed we were first? Man, how naive can you get

[BigBadZ]

[mizerable]

Every so often there's a thread that provides poignant information...it makes it worth sifting though the other 99 dull off topic threads we see every day.

This guy knows his stuff. Absolutely hilarious how he tears down the hoax. I laughed my ass off real good at this stuff. Anytime some conspirator's theory gets absolutely torn apart is awesome.

[Cela]

One thing I've never gotten, why are we unable to point a telescope at the frikkin moon buggy?

[The OP]

This guy makes a lot of assumptions and doesn't really connect the dots. He keeps telling us about things that weren't possible with film and blah blah blah but doesn't really say why that means it couldn't have been faked. It means they couldn't have done the specific things that he is saying are impossible, but that's not what the argument is. I don't care if you think the Moon landing was a hoax or not, I don't see how anyone could fairly say that this video is somehow more compelling than the BBC documentary which raised the major points of the debate. The photograph of Armstrong with the Earth in the background that more people have accused of being fake than anything else isn't even addressed (unless he brought it up in the last 30 seconds, I got tired of this guy's bulls***).

As far as I know, the BBC documentary is still the most extensively researched and credible program on this subject. It is certainly in no danger of being outdone by this video, and to say that the conspiracy theory was "ripped apart" is hilarious. Just because somebody talks fast and has a snarky attitude doesn't mean they're making awesome points.

[mizerable]

Jan 21, 2013 1:55:16 GMT -5 The OP said:

This guy makes a lot of assumptions and doesn't really connect the dots. He keeps telling us about things that weren't possible with film and blah blah blah but doesn't really say why that means it couldn't have been faked. It means they couldn't have done the specific things that he is saying are impossible, but that's not what the argument is. I don't care if you think the Moon landing was a hoax or not, I don't see how anyone could fairly say that this video is somehow more compelling than the BBC documentary which raised the major points of the debate. The photograph of Armstrong with the Earth in the background that more people have accused of being fake than anything else isn't even addressed (unless he brought it up in the last 30 seconds, I got tired of this guy's bulls***).

As far as I know, the BBC documentary is still the most extensively researched and credible program on this subject. It is certainly in no danger of being outdone by this video, and to say that the conspiracy theory was "ripped apart" is hilarious. Just because somebody talks fast and has a snarky attitude doesn't mean they're making awesome points.

If you want to counterpoint any of his points, go for it. But don't say he's making assumptions about things, when that is exactly what the conspirators also do. What he did was take some of the more well-known theories and dissect them through his knowledge of camera work (something that he's been in the field for over 30 years for). Now that doesn't make him correct, but it paints a likelier scenario than the opposition has. Until the opposition can match point for point what he says, then I'm more inclined to agree with him.

But once again, I'm glad you find things "hilarious" that don't meet your outlook on the way the world works.

[Glitch]

This made me think of Mr. Plinkett.

[DrBackflipsHoffman]

I went to the moon and it was boring. You'd have to make up a story about landing on it because the truth is a pile of crap - there's nothing there. It's cold and full of rocks and stuff. That's essentially just the entire North West of America, which is where the faked footage was filmed

[ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul]

Jan 21, 2013 1:55:16 GMT -5 The OP said:

This guy makes a lot of assumptions and doesn't really connect the dots. He keeps telling us about things that weren't possible with film and blah blah blah but doesn't really say why that means it couldn't have been faked. It means they couldn't have done the specific things that he is saying are impossible, but that's not what the argument is. I don't care if you think the Moon landing was a hoax or not, I don't see how anyone could fairly say that this video is somehow more compelling than the BBC documentary which raised the major points of the debate. The photograph of Armstrong with the Earth in the background that more people have accused of being fake than anything else isn't even addressed (unless he brought it up in the last 30 seconds, I got tired of this guy's bulls***).

As far as I know, the BBC documentary is still the most extensively researched and credible program on this subject. It is certainly in no danger of being outdone by this video, and to say that the conspiracy theory was "ripped apart" is hilarious. Just because somebody talks fast and has a snarky attitude doesn't mean they're making awesome points.

No one has said that it is more compelling or better than the BBC documentary. At least here.

Realistically what can be said is he used actual historical context and technological references in regards to the rocketry, and then made an attempt to debunk the conspiracy based on his expertise.

But, let's look at this, if you believe that the moon landing is fake, then isn't it conceivable that the BBC's documentary is fake as well? What is the logical difference between acceptance that a government locked in a technological one-upsmanship with a political, fiscal and expansionist rival actually succeeding; and a documentary produced and distributed by an agency run by another government was based on fabrication and lies?

They both have an equal chance of being truth. Right? It is just a matter accepting who is more believable. Or which scenario is more believable. As both Television and Governments have proven a willingness to distort, if not outright lie to people with equal facility.

Because either requires a leap. Logic, faith, or whatever.

And that leap creates attachment to the result you have attained.

However, an additional point he made I would expound upon through a personal lens, and it how I term my ultimate belief structure:

It is the height of hubris to desist in the pursuit of truth, to bunker down and proclaim one has the ultimate answer and need not seek anymore. It is, in my view, the greatest sin to do that.

[Fiddleford H. McGucket]

My question for those that believe that the Moon landing was fake:

Why Stop at the Moon?

To explain: If the moon landing was fake, and as some would argue the entire Space Program a sham....why didn't they claim something BIGGER? Why in the 40+ years since we claimed a Moon landing haven't they faked an interplanetay mission?

That to me proves it's "Reality" as much as any actual evidence (Which was unnecessary in my case as I'm not a Moon Landing "doubter")

[ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul]

Because the distance involved. The best lies are ones where there is as little lying as possible. As you have to keep that lie straight from there on out.

A good mix is no more than 20-25% lie.

[Deleted]

Meh, the Mythbusters proved we've been to the Moon.

We've been to the f***ing moon.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

I think the main proof is that it would have been more of a hassle to fake it and hold up the masquerade for decades later than actually doing it.

Also, why wouldn't have opponents of the government at the time exposed the lie? You can't buy publicity like "my opponents lied to the World!".

I also remember Mythbuster made an entire episode proving that the footage and pictures taken could have only been done by actually going on the moon and that the "proofs" that it's fake actually only further prove that it's legit.

[Dub H]

Jan 21, 2013 3:43:37 GMT -5 Fiddleford H. McGucket said:

My question for those that believe that the Moon landing was fake:

Why Stop at the Moon?

To explain: If the moon landing was fake, and as some would argue the entire Space Program a sham....why didn't they claim something BIGGER? Why in the 40+ years since we claimed a Moon landing haven't they faked an interplanetay mission?

That to me proves it's "Reality" as much as any actual evidence (Which was unnecessary in my case as I'm not a Moon Landing "doubter")

I won't take sides but i want to awser this one.

Because that there was no need,they did already got to the "Moon"(assuming it is fake) a beat the russians in the space race,that was all they needed.

Jan 21, 2013 5:10:47 GMT -5 SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman said:

I think the main proof is that it would have been more of a hassle to fake it and hold up the masquerade for decades later than actually doing it.

Also, why wouldn't have opponents of the government at the time exposed the lie? You can't buy publicity like "my opponents lied to the World!".

I also remember Mythbuster made an entire episode proving that the footage and pictures taken could have only been done by actually going on the moon and that the "proofs" that it's fake actually only further prove that it's legit.

Just want to point out that publicty...would been awful.No one would support a guy that said their nation biggest and recent achievment was a fake.They would hate the guy guts.

[Kevin Hamilton]

The moon landing conspiracy is so odd.

Beyond the obvious facts of why it took.place, you've also then gotta buy that that many people have kept quiet for 40 years.

Sure.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Jan 21, 2013 7:17:19 GMT -5 Dub H said:

Jan 21, 2013 5:10:47 GMT -5 SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman said:

I think the main proof is that it would have been more of a hassle to fake it and hold up the masquerade for decades later than actually doing it.

Also, why wouldn't have opponents of the government at the time exposed the lie? You can't buy publicity like "my opponents lied to the World!".

I also remember Mythbuster made an entire episode proving that the footage and pictures taken could have only been done by actually going on the moon and that the "proofs" that it's fake actually only further prove that it's legit.

Just want to point out that publicty...would been awful.No one would support a guy that said their nation biggest and recent achievment was a fake.They would hate the guy guts.

Why would they hate the guy who exposed it and was honest with them rather than the guy who lied? If anything, it would give people the feeling that up to now, their government lied to them but now it's over.

[Deleted]

Everyone knows we've been on the moon...

That's where the man who shot Kennedy was. Grassy knoll? Pfft. Depository? As if! It was all from the moon baby

[The OP]

Jan 21, 2013 2:13:50 GMT -5 mizerable said:

Jan 21, 2013 1:55:16 GMT -5 The OP said:

This guy makes a lot of assumptions and doesn't really connect the dots. He keeps telling us about things that weren't possible with film and blah blah blah but doesn't really say why that means it couldn't have been faked. It means they couldn't have done the specific things that he is saying are impossible, but that's not what the argument is. I don't care if you think the Moon landing was a hoax or not, I don't see how anyone could fairly say that this video is somehow more compelling than the BBC documentary which raised the major points of the debate. The photograph of Armstrong with the Earth in the background that more people have accused of being fake than anything else isn't even addressed (unless he brought it up in the last 30 seconds, I got tired of this guy's bulls***).

As far as I know, the BBC documentary is still the most extensively researched and credible program on this subject. It is certainly in no danger of being outdone by this video, and to say that the conspiracy theory was "ripped apart" is hilarious. Just because somebody talks fast and has a snarky attitude doesn't mean they're making awesome points.

If you want to counterpoint any of his points, go for it. But don't say he's making assumptions about things, when that is exactly what the conspirators also do. What he did was take some of the more well-known theories and dissect them through his knowledge of camera work (something that he's been in the field for over 30 years for). Now that doesn't make him correct, but it paints a likelier scenario than the opposition has. Until the opposition can match point for point what he says, then I'm more inclined to agree with him.

But once again, I'm glad you find things "hilarious" that don't meet your outlook on the way the world works.

Have you seen the BBC documentary? It's a lot longer and more detailed than this 13 minute video, if anything the burden would be on this guy to take their evidence point by point which he doesn't even attempt to do here, much less did he rip anybody to shreds or whatever. I don't even think the moon landing was a hoax, if Mythbusters doesn't think so I can't really f*** with those guys I'm not even really a science person, but I also think this video is stupid. The whole thing is like "Well, to fake the moon landing they would have had to do blah blah blah with film which couldn't have been done back then". The whole time I'm like "ok...they would have had to be able to do that to shoot this crappy, blurry footage where you can barely see anything...why?" And he never really gets there, unless like I said it's in the last 30 seconds because after a while I got tired of waiting for him to hit me with the big "gotcha" moment. It never came.

Now that I think about it, I disagree with his whole premise in the first place. The fact that film was crappy back then means that it was gonna look like s*** no matter what, which it did. Wouldn't that make it easier to fake, not harder? He said himself that it was a blurry, boring mess and he couldn't even bring himself to watch most of it. He's like "why has no one touched on this, the most obvious and important point?" Because that's not what this is, sorry dude.

[Deleted]

It has nothing to do with the Moon (I think) but there's a great Nat Geo video out there on why the Patterson-Gimlin Sasquatch footage could not possibly be fake.