moon landing conspiracy

JimmyFloyd

I'm out!

karlog

ok you jackass ill leave it at this, you believe they were real i believe they were fake. Until proven then we'll all know

JimmyFloyd

It has been proven, you just don't wanna hear it.

Do you believe in other theories or just this one?

karlog

Just this one

and there have been theorys that have turned out to be true

and the moon landings have not been proven not yet

JimmyFloyd

Which ones have turned out to be true?

karlog

Secret CIA prisons

Watergate scandal

Iran-contra

Secret bombing of cambodia(not a secret anymore)

The cuban project

Operation PBSUCCESS

there just some of the theories that have been proven

JimmyFloyd

But how do you know? How do you know that the Russians weren't behind all of those conspiracies in order for you and everyonee to always suspect the Americans of conspiring against us?

karlog

LOL because they have been proven and dont reply with 'but the moon landings have been proven' cause they haven't

JimmyFloyd

...... but the moon landings have been proven.

Have you seen proof that Watergate isnt just a Russian cover up?

Unless i get proof from the russians, i don't believe it!

karlog

I'm out!!!

JimmyFloyd

i know how you feel:rolleyes:

bonkey

Karlog warned, KimmyFloyd warned and infracted....both for abusive comments.

bonkey

karlog wrote: »

If the first apollo mission was a fake just to get the U.S ahead in the space race were all the other apollo missions a hoax also?

If we were to assume the first mission were hoaxed, then unless we could see differences in the information from the other missions, one would almost-certainly have to conclude they were also hoaxed.

Have we ever put a man on the moon?

We certainly didn't put one on the moon with the first Apollo mission.

JimmyFloyd

bonkey wrote: »

We certainly didn't put one on the moon with the first Apollo mission.

I completely disagree!

bonkey

JimmyFloyd wrote: »

I completely disagree!

Really?

As far as I'm aware, Apollo 1 didn't even launch.

The first manned, launched Apollo mission was Apollo 7. It was earth-orbital only.

Apollo 8 was the first manned Apollo mission to go to the moon.
Apollo 9 stayed in earth-orbit, testing the LM.
Apollo 10 went to the moon and orbited again, this time testing the lunar module.

Apollo 11 was the fifth manned Apollo mission, and the third manned Apollo mission to go to the moon.

So...tell me...why do you completely disagree that the first Apollo mission did not put a man on the moon?

JimmyFloyd

:rolleyes:

In my opinion, it's pretty clear that when the OP says "First Apollo Mission", he means Apollo 11.

Especially since the thread is called "moon landing conspiracy"

6th

JimmyFloyd wrote: »

In fairness, i've always just rejected any kind of "Evidence" in this case.

JimmyFloyd wrote: »

Dude, seriously, read this http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

It was posted earier, i've just read it.

It explains everything

JimmyFloyd wrote: »

Have you read the link?

I'm getting the feling that you are listening to one side of the story but not bothering with the other

Ok so just off hand you will reject evidence which suggests a CT yet you expect others to read evidence which backs up your views?

So if another poster was to "just rejected any kind of evidence" .... you think they would be taking a balanced view of the discussion?

bonkey

JimmyFloyd wrote: »

:rolleyes:

In my opinion, it's pretty clear that when the OP says "First Apollo Mission", he means Apollo 11.

Eye-rolling smilies aside, I'd agree that the OP probably meant Apollo 11.

I was just interested to see if someone would assume that I meant the same thing when I used the same phrase, even though what I meant was apparently the complete opposite of how you interpreted it.

Its easy to misinterpret information...which is the point I wanted to make.

gpjordanf1

Would they not have to go to the moon first to know how to hoax a moon landing?

Ostrom

karlog wrote: »

The only way i'll believe if they were real if a probe or whatever is sent and pictures of the apollo 11 landing site are taken proving its there. have they done that?

Why yes they have! (Or at least are in the process of, 50cm res)

http://spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av020/090702firstpix/


I encourage you too watch 'In the shadow of the moon'

King Mob

karlog wrote: »

Heres one claim that you should consider in one of the apollo mission videos what looks to be a wire can be seen for a second. Could be anything but its seen protruding from one of the astronauts going directly up in the air.

As you said it could be anything.

How is this evidence of fakery?

karlog

How is the video so called evidence

Do you believe everything you see on tv

King Mob

karlog wrote: »

How is the video so called evidence

Because it shows the mission in detail.
And that there are no inconsistencies.

And video isn't the only evidence.

karlog wrote: »

Do you believe everything you see on tv

No I don't. Do you believe everything you read on conspiracy theory websites?

karlog

King Mob wrote: »

Because it shows the mission in detail.
And that there are no inconsistencies.

And video isn't the only evidence.


No I don't. Do you believe everything you read on conspiracy theory websites?

There are inconsistencies

• Use of multiple overhead light sources
• Light direction anomalies (no lights were taken to the Moon)
• Lighting units 'in shot'
• Incorrect size of the sun
• Fabricated scenes deploying photo compositing
• Multiple use of backdrops
• Mutually exclusive images
• High camera positions
• Retouching/blocking out of unwanted background details
• Lunar rovers that leave no tracks in the lunar dust

and yes NASA have good explanations for this which i believe to be false explanations. MEANING I DONT BELIEVE THEM

Your right the video isn't the only evidence to suggest it was real but there is also evidence other than the video to suggest it was fake

and no i most certainly do not believe everything i read on conspiracy theory websites im just convinced by this conspiracy theory in particular. I'm not going to go into a long argument with you, i'm going to leave it at this post.............have your say:D

Zapho

karlog wrote: »

How would i know you weren't conspiring with NASA or the U.S government. The only people i could think of that would love to debunk the moon landing (more than conspiracy theorists) is the russians.

Why only the Russians? Why not the Chinese? They are, in fact, planning a manned moon landing of their own right now. Don't you think they would be going out of their way to say "We will be the first to the moon!" if there was any scientific evidence to suggest NASA faked the missions?

Owen

karlog wrote: »

There are inconsistencies

• Use of multiple overhead light sources
• Light direction anomalies (no lights were taken to the Moon)
• Lighting units 'in shot'
• Incorrect size of the sun
• Fabricated scenes deploying photo compositing
• Multiple use of backdrops
• Mutually exclusive images
• High camera positions
• Retouching/blocking out of unwanted background details
• Lunar rovers that leave no tracks in the lunar dust

All of those 'inconsistencies' were dealt with recently on an episode of Mythbusters. All of the conspiracy theories were very quickly put to bed when they were able to replicate every single one of the claimed falsehoods.

King Mob

karlog wrote: »

There are inconsistencies

There are things that are claimed to be inconsistencies but when they are examined it is shown they are not.

karlog wrote: »

[*]Use of multiple overhead light sources
[*]Light direction anomalies (no lights were taken to the Moon)

This has been addressed.

karlog wrote: »

[*]Lighting units 'in shot'

Can you provide an example?

karlog wrote: »

[*]Incorrect size of the sun

Example?

karlog wrote: »

[*]Fabricated scenes deploying photo compositing

Many photos where made in composites for publicity. What's your point?

karlog wrote: »

[*]Multiple use of backdrops

Or it was the astronaut being in the same place twice. Or in a slightly different position?

karlog wrote: »

[*]Mutually exclusive images

Not sure what you mean by this.

karlog wrote: »

[*]High camera positions

Example?

karlog wrote: »

[*]Retouching/blocking out of unwanted background details

Example?

karlog wrote: »

[*]Lunar rovers that leave no tracks in the lunar dust

Example?

karlog wrote: »

and yes NASA have good explanations for this which i believe to be false explanations. MEANING I DONT BELIEVE THEM

But why do you believe them to be false? Why do you believe the conspiracy explanations?
The conspiracy explanations are usually based on an ignorance of science and are self contradictory.

karlog wrote: »

Your right the video isn't the only evidence to suggest it was real but there is also evidence other than the video to suggest it was fake

Such as?
Is it verifiable solid evidence?

karlog wrote: »

and no i most certainly do not believe everything i read on conspiracy theory websites im just convinced by this conspiracy theory in particular. I'm not going to go into a long argument with you, i'm going to leave it at this post.............have your say:D

But it seems you where not convinced by solid evidence and that you refuse to look critically into the claims you believe.
You seem to have accepted this conspiracy completely unquestioningly.

A7X

This website shows all the examples if you want to look yourself. http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htm

Under the Apollo/moon drop down bar it goes into detail about all the inconsistencies.

A7X

PaintDoctor wrote: »

All of those 'inconsistencies' were dealt with recently on an episode of Mythbusters. All of the conspiracy theories were very quickly put to bed when they were able to replicate every single one of the claimed falsehoods.

Sorry for the double post but no they weren't all dealt with on that episode. The only did like 3 or 4 when there are many many more.

Undergod

PaintDoctor wrote: »

All of those 'inconsistencies' were dealt with recently on an episode of Mythbusters. All of the conspiracy theories were very quickly put to bed when they were able to replicate every single one of the claimed falsehoods.

For the sake of everyone can I suggest we do not go down the Mythbusters route? It was not pretty last time.

King Mob

A7X wrote: »

This website shows all the examples if you want to look yourself. http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htm

Under the Apollo/moon drop down bar it goes into detail about all the inconsistencies.

For that first page it seems these guys don't understand perspective.

A7X

King Mob wrote: »

For that first page it seems these guys don't understand perspective.

What? In the first three pictures they show on that page the same backdrop is used. The three pictures are from the same moon landing.
In conjunction with the same background, the foreground changes in each picture but the background changes in no way.

If you want to talk about perspective you would expect the background to change in size as the camera gets closer or further away from it, as that is the only explanation I can think of for the change in the foreground, if its not the case that they were staged.

But the fact is the background does not change at all.

King Mob

A7X wrote: »

What? In the first three pictures they show on that page the same backdrop is used. The three pictures are from the same moon landing.
In conjunction with the same background, the foreground changes in each picture but the background changes in no way.

If you want to talk about perspective you would expect the background to change in size as the camera gets closer or further away from it, as that is the only explanation I can think of for the change in the foreground, if its not the case that they were staged.

But the fact is the background does not change at all.

And all those photos are clearly taken at different positions away from the LEM. They are all consistent with each other.

Thing is it's a lot harder to judge distance and height on the Moon than it is on Earth. This is due to the lack of distortion and haze caused by the atmosphere. Very distant objects appear clearer and sharper than you would expect.

I think those mountains in the back ground are alot bigger and further away than these guys are letting on.

And the background does change a bit. It is consistent with the position away from the LEM.

A7X

King Mob wrote: »

And all those photos are clearly taken at different positions away from the LEM. They are all consistent with each other.

Thing is it's a lot harder to judge distance and height on the Moon than it is on Earth. This is due to the lack of distortion and haze caused by the atmosphere. Very distant objects appear clearer and sharper than you would expect.

I think those mountains in the back ground are alot bigger and further away than these guys are letting on.

And the background does change a bit. It is consistent with the position away from the LEM.

All of those three pictures line up exactly, which is to say they were taken at roughly the same angle but at different distances. Its not a case of how clear or sharp the image is, its how big or small the background is in the different pictures.

Now for the foreground to change that much there would of had to be a significant difference in distance in those pictures being taken, which would mean a significant or at least noticable difference in the size of the background and surroundings.

Also, you can see that the ground in front of the LEM changes in the 2 pictures that it is in.

I agree, it is hard to tell how far away these mountains are in those pictures, but go to the next page and you will see a landscape picture of the valley and even more pictures with obvious mistakes in them.

King Mob

A7X wrote: »

All of those three pictures line up exactly, which is to say they were taken at roughly the same angle but at different distances. Its not a case of how clear or sharp the image is, its how big or small the background is in the different pictures.

Actually they don't line up exactly.
There's a good bit of difference between them.
Especially on point A.

A7X wrote: »

Now for the foreground to change that much there would of had to be a significant difference in distance in those pictures being taken, which would mean a significant or at least noticable difference in the size of the background and surroundings.

Not really.
The top and bottom photos aren't that far apart.
The middle one could have been taken for the other side of the LEM.#
It really depends on how far away and big those mountains are.

A7X wrote: »

Also, you can see that the ground in front of the LEM changes in the 2 pictures that it is in.

No it doesn't.One just doesn't have the detail the other does.
There also seem to be a little bit of a rise between the rover and and LEM.

A7X wrote: »

I agree, it is hard to tell how far away these mountains are in those pictures, but go to the next page and you will see a landscape picture of the valley and even more pictures with obvious mistakes in them.

And you run into the exact same problem.
Without knowing the distance and size of those mountains you can't tell how much they'll change with perspective. A neat little thing they seem to neglect to mention.

Here's a pretty good site that address many of the points raised on the you provided.

Black Swan

karlog wrote: »

If the first apollo mission was a fake just to get the U.S ahead in the space race were all the other apollo missions a hoax also? Have we ever put a man on the moon?

I have a cousin that has worked his entire scientific career at NASA funded JPL in Pasadana-La Canada, California. He is amused by such unscientific conspiracy claims, suggesting that they belong in the National Enquirer or the red tops at check out along with Elvis sitings.

Although the Moon walks were way before my birth, I have visited both JPL and Cal Tech's libraries and resources in the past 3 years to satisfy my curiosity regarding space exploration, which has been performed by NASA for decades. The scientific record is accumulative, extending back over time, with increasing levels of sophistication and discovery, which suggests that the Moon walks were technologically feasible at the time they occurred, as well as the feasibility of Mars walks in the future. Of course, when they walk on Mars, there will be a Hollywood film that speculates that it was done on a stage rather than in reality, and boards.ie will have conspiracy theories galore speculating that it was fake.

thecommander

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Of course, when they walk on Mars, there will be a Hollywood film that speculates that it was done on a stage rather than in reality, and boards.ie will have conspiracy theories galore speculating that it was fake.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/

espinolman

karlog wrote: »

If the first apollo mission was a fake just to get the U.S ahead in the space race were all the other apollo missions a hoax also? Have we ever put a man on the moon?

I have been informed that they did go to the moon in an extraterrestrial spacecraft , they went in an alien spaceship ! . :cool:

King Mob

espinolman wrote: »

I have been informed that they did go to the moon in an extraterrestrial spacecraft , they went in an alien spaceship ! . :cool:

Then you have been misinformed.

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

Then you have been misinformed.

How do you know i have been misinformed , it could be true , you never know , you see i asked them , and that is what they told me .

King Mob

espinolman wrote: »

How do you know i have been misinformed , it could be true , you never know , you see i asked them , and that is what they told me .

Because all the actual verifiable evidence shows they went up in the Apollo module?

Who told you exactly?

But maybe they went on the back of a purple dragon?
You never know.

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

Because all the actual verifiable evidence shows they went up in the Apollo module?



But maybe they went on the back of a purple dragon?
You never know.

Ah but sure they could'nt even fit into that lunar lander in their spacesuits , no it seems they went in an extraterrestrial spacecraft .

King Mob wrote: »

Who told you exactly?

:cool::cool: I can't say , i promised them i would not give out their name . :cool::cool:

rameire

espinolman wrote: »

Ah but sure they could'nt even fit into that lunar lander in their spacesuits , no it seems they went in an extraterrestrial spacecraft .



:cool::cool: I can't say , i promised them i would not give out their name . :cool::cool:

im sorry but this is the sort of rubbish that stops people from posting in this forum,
its the rubbish that restricts the forum from really talking about the incidents involved.
hence the reason why only a few people only post.

im just going to add my two pence,
thety actually went up on a flying ford cortina, i cant tell you how i know but its true,a nd i will never agree to anything anyone says no matter how much evidence you submit.

King Mob

espinolman wrote: »

Ah but sure they could'nt even fit into that lunar lander in their spacesuits ,

That's not true at all.
They could fit between the command module and the lander in the EVA suits.
But they didn't need to do that.
the door they actually used to get out was well big enough to allow them to get out.

espinolman wrote: »

no it seems they went in an extraterrestrial spacecraft .

So because they couldn't fit in the door therefore it must have been an alien ship.
Not exactly the best logic there.

espinolman wrote: »

:cool::cool: I can't say , i promised them i would not give out their name . :cool::cool:

Well a guy I can't name told me they when on a purple dragon.
Therefore they did.

A7X

King Mob wrote: »

Actually they don't line up exactly.
There's a good bit of difference between them.
Especially on point A.

They do line up exactly. The lines connecting them shows that. The only difference is the different lighting.

King Mob wrote: »

Not really.
The top and bottom photos aren't that far apart.
The middle one could have been taken for the other side of the LEM.#
It really depends on how far away and big those mountains are.

I agree. But the picture on the next page show how far away they are supposed to be. There is also a picture on the next page of the LEM taken from far away and the mountains behind it are huge and take up the whole picture. This doesnt add up unless there are enormous mountains behind it from a different view.
It is also described as being surrounded by lighter ground made by the decent plume, yet this is not visable in the closer pictures.

King Mob wrote: »

No it doesn't.One just doesn't have the detail the other does.
There also seem to be a little bit of a rise between the rover and and LEM.

You can clearly see it is surrounded by outstanding dark grey ground in one and not in the other. There may be a rise but you can see the legs of the lander and the dark grey ground is not as pronounced.

King Mob wrote: »

And you run into the exact same problem.
Without knowing the distance and size of those mountains you can't tell how much they'll change with perspective. A neat little thing they seem to neglect to mention.

No they do not neglect to mention. If you read it all you will know that they give exactly where each picture was taken as according to NASA and in the case of some pictures the reported distances from the LEM the photo was taken and how far back the mountains are.

King Mob wrote: »

Here's a pretty good site that address many of the points raised on the you provided.

You didnt give a link.

It's not only these pictures that raise the theory about the pictures being faked.

There are many. Too many for me to mention but all are available on that site.

For example, an astronaut is visible in a reflection in one of there visors and he is shown to not be wearing his Personal life support system.
He is also the person taking the picture but he is seen to not be wearing his camera, and he is not fully facing the person which he would have to to take the picture.

There is a picture of a close up of a lunar rover with no tracks surrounding it, leading us to believe that it was just placed there and not driven.
It also happened with an astronaut, where he is seen to be in mid air with only footprints directly under him and none leading up to the position he is in.

There are photographs taken in succession where the camera hasn't moved at all between the photos. This would only happen if the camera was on a tripod, But they werent. They were attached to their chest.

I Highly recommend looking at these pictures, some of the anomilies in them are ridiculous.

King Mob

A7X wrote: »

They do line up exactly. The lines connecting them shows that. The only difference is the different lighting.

No there is a slight difference. If you look at the hills the lines are on different points in each photo.

A7X wrote: »

I agree. But the picture on the next page show how far away they are supposed to be. There is also a picture on the next page of the LEM taken from far away and the mountains behind it are huge and take up the whole picture. This doesnt add up unless there are enormous mountains behind it from a different view.

They are huge.

A7X wrote: »

It is also described as being surrounded by lighter ground made by the decent plume, yet this is not visable in the closer pictures.

You can clearly see it is surrounded by outstanding dark grey ground in one and not in the other. There may be a rise but you can see the legs of the lander and the dark grey ground is not as pronounced.

And you can see there is a difference in distance.
You should also notice in one photo you can see the pads on the legs of the LEM while in another you cannot.

A7X wrote: »

No they do not neglect to mention. If you read it all you will know that they give exactly where each picture was taken as according to NASA and in the case of some pictures the reported distances from the LEM the photo was taken and how far back the mountains are.

And which ones are these?

A7X wrote: »

You didnt give a link.

Ah my bad.
http://www.clavius.org/

A7X wrote: »

It's not only these pictures that raise the theory about the pictures being faked.

There are many. Too many for me to mention but all are available on that site.

And what about all the facts that show they when to the moon.
Specifically all the verified moon samples?

A7X wrote: »

For example, an astronaut is visible in a reflection in one of there visors and he is shown to not be wearing his Personal life support system.
He is also the person taking the picture but he is seen to not be wearing his camera, and he is not fully facing the person which he would have to to take the picture.

And it's impossible that it's just hard to make out these details on a reflection in a photo?
Please post them up.

A7X wrote: »

There is a picture of a close up of a lunar rover with no tracks surrounding it, leading us to believe that it was just placed there and not driven.

It also looks like that the astronauts were working between the rover and the cargo hatch thing on the lander. the boot prints of the astronauts going back and forth destroying the tracks.
http://www.clavius.org/rover2.html

A7X wrote: »

It also happened with an astronaut, where he is seen to be in mid air with only footprints directly under him and none leading up to the position he is in.

I have seen this photo. the angle it's at makes it hard to see any boot prints. Doesn't mean they aren't there. You can see a few thing that could well be boot prints.
http://www.clavius.org/jumpsal.html

A7X wrote: »

There are photographs taken in succession where the camera hasn't moved at all between the photos. This would only happen if the camera was on a tripod, But they werent. They were attached to their chest.

There where cameras mounted on tripods. And on the lander. And on the rover.

A7X wrote: »

I Highly recommend looking at these pictures, some of the anomilies in them are ridiculous.

I have.
These "anomalies" are simply misconception blown out of proportion.
They are usually of the variety "... a fake is the only explanation". This is always not the case.

karlog

I cant really believe that all those anomalies are coincidence

but heres another theory that you might even believe: They did go to the moon but the anomalies in the photos and videos were put there on purpose so rival countries at the time(russia for example) wouldn't be able to know in detail certain aspects of the mission preventing them from building there own lunar module or whatever and landing on the moon themselves:eek:

A7X

King Mob wrote: »

No there is a slight difference. If you look at the hills the lines are on different points in each photo.

Yes there is a small difference but that's not the point. They are the same background, different foreground and no change in size at all.

King Mob wrote: »

They are huge.

http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/17-139-21203noreticles.jpg Ive seen pictures of the background in all directions and I cant see any mountains that size. Also If they are that big they would get bigger the closer you get to the LEM yet they dont.

King Mob wrote: »

And you can see there is a difference in distance.
You should also notice in one photo you can see the pads on the legs of the LEM while in another you cannot.

That may be so, but in the photo I showed just there it had been quoted on about the light grey dust surrounding the lander that was made by the descent plume yet on closer photos there is no evidence of this.

King Mob wrote: »

And which ones are these?

It was about the picture I posted. Here is the quote. "The item in the centre of this telephoto image, believe it or not, is the LM – allegedly at the same Apollo 17 location we were looking at earlier. According to the record, the LM is almost two miles away, photographed from the base of the North Massif. The sides of the South Massif in the background are 5 miles away."

King Mob wrote: »

And what about all the facts that show they when to the moon.
Specifically all the verified moon samples?

I believe that we have gone to the moon in some shape or form, but for whatever reason they decided to stage the photo's of them on the moon.

King Mob wrote: »

And it's impossible that it's just hard to make out these details on a reflection in a photo?
Please post them up.

http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/A17noplss.jpg It's very clear.

King Mob wrote: »

It also looks like that the astronauts were working between the rover and the cargo hatch thing on the lander. the boot prints of the astronauts going back and forth destroying the tracks.
http://www.clavius.org/rover2.html

That may be the reason but there is literally no tracks from the rover in that picture at all. Even where there are no footprints or directly under the wheel where the astronauts can't stand. I would except that as the reason if there was a single piece of rover tracks visible.

King Mob wrote: »

I have seen this photo. the angle it's at makes it hard to see any boot prints. Doesn't mean they aren't there. You can see a few thing that could well be boot prints.
http://www.clavius.org/jumpsal.html

No its not that photo it's this one http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/12conradsdance.jpg

King Mob wrote: »

There where cameras mounted on tripods. And on the lander. And on the rover.

They were for the tv camera's. I'm refering to the Photo's taken from the astronauts camera which is situated on their chest, which means they can only take photo's in the direction they are facing and at chest height. They also had no viewfinder. In regards to the jump salute picture. The astronaut taking the photo is seen in the tv broadcast to be using the camera on his chest to take the photo. He took 2 photo's. Both nearly exactly identical. How this is done with someone using a camera which they can't even look through and only guess is baffling. http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/16jumpsalutesgrid.jpg Also he reaches the exact same height in his jump in both photos even though he ran for the first and not for the second.

King Mob wrote: »

I have.
These "anomalies" are simply misconception blown out of proportion.
They are usually of the variety "... a fake is the only explanation". This is always not the case.

The fact is there are many anomilies. I'd be very happy if these photo's were not fake and were real, but I just can't look at all the evidence, which we have only scratched the surface, and accept that there is nothing strange going on with them.

King Mob

karlog wrote: »

I cant really believe that all those anomalies are coincidence

Well they aren't anomalies at all.

It's apparent that some people got the idea the moon landings are faked and looked for anything they couldn't understand or appeared anomalous to them and presented them as proof of a hoax without any critical analysis.

karlog wrote: »

but heres another theory that you might even believe: They did go to the moon but the anomalies in the photos and videos were put there on purpose so rival countries at the time(russia for example) wouldn't be able to know in detail certain aspects of the mission preventing them from building there own lunar module or whatever and landing on the moon themselves:eek:

But none of the "anomalies" are covering up any technology.
The only things worth stealing are the rocket engines and the guidance systems. The vital parts of which wouldn't be apparent in photos anyway.

And if this is true why don't NASA come out with it? Many of the counter espionage operation during that time have been declassified?

And if it wasn't true why don't NASA just make that claim anyway to explain away the "anomalies"?

karlog

I dont know but i hope everyone finds out eventually