Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?

1. Crosshairs on some photos appear to be behind objects, rather than in front of them where they should be, as if the photos were altered.

* In photography, the light white color (the object behind the crosshair) makes the black object (the crosshair) invisible due to saturation effects in the film emulsion.

2. The quality of the photographs is implausibly high.

* NASA selected only the best photographs for release to the public, and some of the photos were cropped to improve their composition. There are many badly exposed, badly focused and poorly composed images amongst the thousands of photos that were taken by the Apollo Astronauts. Many can be seen at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Photos were taken on high-quality Hasselblad cameras with Zeiss lenses, using 70 mm medium format film.

3. There are no stars in any of the photos, and astronauts never report seeing any stars from the capsule windows.

* There are also no stars seen in Space Shuttle, Mir, International Space Station and Earth observation photos. Cameras used for imaging these things are set for quick shutter speeds in order to prevent overexposing the film for the brightly lit daylight scenes. The dim light of the stars simply does not have a chance to expose the film.

* Believers in the hoax theory contend that the stars were removed from the photographs because they would have looked identical to the stars as seen from the Earth, i.e. no parallax view. However, the distance from the Earth to the Moon is very small compared to the distance to the stars, so no parallax would have been visible anyway. (The nearest star is over 100,000,000 times farther away than the Moon, and most stars are much farther away than that.)

4. The color and angle of shadows and light.

* Shadows on the Moon are complicated because there are several light sources; the Sun, Earth and the Moon itself. Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many different directions, including into shadows. Additionally, the Moon's surface is not flat and shadows falling into craters and hills appear longer, shorter and distorted from the simple expectations of the hoax believers. More significantly, perspective comes into play. This effect leads to non-parallel shadows even on objects which are extremely close to each other, and can be observed easily on Earth wherever fences or trees are found. (Plait 2002:167-72).

5. Identical backgrounds in photos that are listed as taken miles apart.

* Detailed comparison of the backgrounds claimed to be identical in fact show significant changes in the relative positions of the hills that are consistent with the claimed locations that the images were taken from. Parallax effects clearly demonstrate that the images were taken from widely different locations around the landing sites. Claims that the appearance of the background is identical while the foreground changes (for example, from a boulder strewn crater to the Lunar Module) are trivially explained when the images were taken from nearby locations, akin to seeing distant mountains appearing the same on Earth from locations that are hundreds of feet apart showing different foreground items. Furthermore, as there is no atmosphere on the Moon, very distant objects will appear clearer and closer to the human eye. What appears as nearby hills in some photographs, are actually mountains several kilometers high and some 10-20 kilometers away.

6. The number of photographs taken is implausibly high. When the total number of official photographs taken during EVA of all Apollo missions is divided by the total amount of time of all EVAs, one arrives at 1.19 photos per minute. That is one photo per 50 seconds. Discounting time spent on other activities results in one photo per 15 seconds for Apollo 11.

* The astronauts were well trained before the mission in the use of photographic equipment. Since there were no weather effects to contend with and the bright sunlight scenes permitted the use of small apertures with consequent large depth of field, the equipment was generally kept at a single setting for the duration of the mission. All that was required of the astronauts was to open the shutter and wind the film to take a picture.

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.

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.

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.

Even today, there are people who believe in the 5 second rule. Who believe that a badge or book can stop a bullet. Who believe the gravity is a push. And who believe, even today in the first world, the world if flat.

But even the greatest conspiracy theorist, Agent Fox Mulder from the then hit TV series X-Files, when looking at it would say "We landed on the moon." Three of the best evidence that proves the moon landing was a hoax can easily be explained by people with eyes and a brain.

#3 - No Stars: On a clear night in the city, look up into the sky and what do you see? You see the moon. Can you see stars? No, or at least hardly. Those stars are even being dampened out by "dimly" lit street lights, so image being on a bright surface of the moon.

Myth busted.

#2 - No Parallel Shadows: If you were to look on a hill or ground on Earth that isn't a road when the sun is relatively how in the horizon, either in the morning, evening, or in winter, how many of the shadows are parallel? Not many. Cause that conspiracy was based upon flat surfaces, and the moon has none.

Myth busted And the ultimate evidence: #1 - Waving Flag: That "evidence" is suppose to be the evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the lunar landings were hoaxed. Look again. When the astronauts are positioning the flag, it is true the flag is moving, but the astronauts are moving it when they are positioning it. And the flag isn't flapping, it is whipping. And when looking at other footage with the flag, the flag isn't flapping at all.

The ultimate evidence - myth busted.

Even though it is nothing more than pure and utter fiction, does show the gullibility of the average person. But even then it is very thought provoking. Even worse, not only all the evidence that favours the conspiracy can easily be used to prove the lunar landings did happen, there is even more evidence never addressed by the conspiracy theorists that proves that the lunar landings did happen.