Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?

Why are you all so determined to slate the show? Does it not seem reasonable that the American Government is lying again, they do lie about most things you know! With all the conjecture about "did we?" or "didn't we?" No body has thought about what the Government of a nation is capable of... Threatening, killing, destroying, lying, hiding... etc.

It's obvious to even the very dim that the video footage and all its evidence is fake. It does NOT mean that there was no Moon landing though. It IS possible to land on the moon (even then), but those bits of evidence from NASA were faked in order to show what couldn't be shown for real (due to technology issues). Some of those pictures were most probably 'touched up' to show detail. Since NASA had already denied this, they would lose face if the truth came out. So they continue to deny. As for: No stars, no engine plume, no crater, flag moves... These are explained through simple means (as mentioned in earlier posts). It does, however, raise other questions, like... Who filmed the ascent? Or, why evidence suddenly goes missing after its authors death, which could prove or dis-prove this whole debate? THINK BEFORE YOU RANT AND WAVE YOUR FLAG!

So instead of slagging those whom know the difference between fake and real pictures/film. Remember, they would also be happily proved wrong. Fox are bound to issue a rebuttal. Wouldn't you, if the Government threatened you? They are known for it after all.

So. Every piece of argument presented in favour of the hoax idea is very easily disputed, and the "experts" discredited (or, in the case of the grieving family members, understandably emotionally biased). In contrast, existing reliable evidence, and sound logic, fully support the reality of the '69 landing and those that follow.

But. For precisely this reason, and the shameless use of logical fallacy and entry-level persuasive technique, it is a really useful teaching tool when working on examining the validity of historical evidence and/or verifying sources. A handful of kids are usually swayed by the presented arguments at first...which puts them in a fun, argumentative, place for conducting further (simple) research. It instills a pretty strong instinct to question, and willingness to properly search out answers.

Problem: It's been taken down by Netflix and is hard to find! Anybody have any idea where to find it? I'm relying on youtube, where uploads don't last long.

Poor Mitch Pileggi. This must have been his contractually obligated "turkey" that Hollywood makes its "stars" do, just to prove who's in charge.

So you think we faked the moon landing?

So you saw the flag flapping in the "breeze" on the airless moon. No you didn't. The flag had a rod through the top and a weight at the bottom corner so that it would look fully deployed. And the "flapping" you saw was due to the astronaut TWISTING THE FLAGPOLE INTO THE LUNAR SOIL for better placement. As soon as the twisting stopped, guess what? The flapping stopped too!

And try this one on for size, airboy: Ever drop some flour in the kitchen and notice a cloud of dust hovering over the floor? Well if the astronauts were REALLY on a soundstage with a flag that was REALLY flapping in the breeze, you'd see dust flying all around too. But you didn't, because there wasn't, BECAUSE THEY WERE ON THE (AIRLESS) MOON!

So you thought the lighting of the Astronauts was too perfect, as if it was a studio job. Well, the lighting and the shadows would be a little wonky, considering that there are THREE sources of light in the photos: The sun (natch), the Earth (much the same way the full moon illuminates the night sky), and the moon itself. That's right, all that moonlight that we see here on earth was shining right up into the astronauts' faces and giving their spacesuits a nice, soft-light look.

Oh, that's also the reason you don't see any stars in the moon photos. The surrounding moonlight was so bright, the shutter speeds on the cameras were set very fast. It would be like taking a picture out your living room window at night and expecting to see stars in the photo. Ain't gonna happen.

So you think that there should be a great big crater under the LEM. Well I hate to break this to you, but the LEM didn't land at full power. Most of its fuel load was spent in deceleration from orbit, and in hovering over the landing site. They only needed a fraction of its power to make a nice, soft, 1/6th gravity landing. They didn't even "land" under power. Each of the landing "feet" had a thin rod that would signal the astronauts that they were just over the surface. They would then cut the engine and drop the final 18 inches unpowered. ("Contact light! OK, Engine Stop!" Remember that from the Apollo mission tapes?)

And then there's the matter of the ascent stage, popping off the moon as if it was on a cable. See, once again you're taking what you've seen (launches on earth) and projecting them onto what you THINK you've seen. It takes a ridiculous amount of thrust to start moving up. So when rockets launch from earth, they are held down for a few seconds. It's the same as starting your car when you're parked on a hill. Hold your foot on the brake and give it a little gas so you don't roll back. Well, you don't need to do that on the moon with its one-sixth gravity and when all you're moving is an ascent stage. Throw the switch and ((woosh!)) you're off.

Oh, and the reason you don't see any flame from the ascent rocket is simple: real rocket fuel doesn't burn, it's hypergolic. In a nutshell, 2 chemicals that are otherwise inert come together and expand rapidly. If you focus and channel it the right way, you get thrust. (It's not easy to do, but it can be done. That's why the phrase "Rocket Scientist" has such a mystique in our society.) But it doesn't produce a visible flame. The dramatic, flaming liftoff of the Saturn 5 rocket from Cape Kennedy came from the fuel mixture of the first stage, which used kerosene. And that WILL produce one heckuva flame, unlike the Eagle's ascent rocket.

There's more, but I think I've proved the point. Every so-called "Fact" on the show is easily refuted when you happen to know more than the average X-Phile about real science.

In my astronomy class, we watched this movie and then went through why all the theories are wrong. There is an entire website dedicated to why everything in this movie is wrong Everything in this movie is taken out of context for sensationalism.

Conspiracy-theory-nutjobs should spend less time researching the Illuminati, the reverse-vampires, the Zionists, the saucer-people, and the Freemasons and instead take an introductory physics course.

This so-called documentary does a poor job at presenting various possible viewpoints and misuses or ignores the applications of physical and optical laws. FOX could have done so much more with this interesting topic. This film only serves to hurt the credibility whether FOX is capable of producing a documentary.

Disjointed sequences of very short interview clips with only a handful of people present their opinions and analyses. No independent engineers or optical experts were consulted about the physics-related theories presented to provide additional insight.

The film tries and fails miserably to inspire the viewer to ask more questions than the film tries to answer. The intelligent viewer may learn that without a rudimentary understanding of physics, gravity, and optics one can easily "prove" just about anything.

There is lots of nice NASA footage, but nothing that can't be found in other well-written documentaries.