Conspiracy theories that the moon landing was a hoax staged by the U.S. government to win the space race with the Soviets began to gain traction in the mid-1970s. The basic template of the conspiracy theory is that NASA couldn’t safely land a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s as President John F Kennedy had promised, so it only sent astronaut Buzz Aldrin to plant the U.S. flag on the Moon on July 20, 1969.
The Apollo 11 mission put man on the Moon for the first time on July 20, 1969, but some conspiracy theorists believe the entire moon landing was fake. Claims the Apollo 11 mission was staged began soon after astronauts first set foot on the moon in 1969. Commander Neil Armstrong and lunar module pilot Buzz Aldrin landed the Apollo Lunar Module Eagle on July 20, 1969.
NASA Apollo moon missions really did land 12 astronauts on the lunar surface in the 1960s and 1970s, but that hasn’t stopped conspiracy. David Shapton recently saw the famous clip of the Apollo 17 mission’s Lunar Module taking off from the surface of the Moon, which supports the idea that the moon landings were faked. The new Scarlett Johansson and Channing Tatum film presents an alternative history in which government officials prepared to fake the moon landing before NASA pulled off the feat for real.
📹 Debunking moon landing conspiracy theories | QI – BBC
Why do people doubt the moon landings? #QI #iPlayer Stephen Fry asks unanswerable questions about hoaxes, with Sean …
📹 Nvidia Debunks Conspiracy Theories About Moon Landing
Talk about voxels and cones too dry to pique your interest in real-time lighting tech? Then have a peek at this re-creation of the …
Just a quick refresher: Over more than 10 years, Project Apollo involved 400,000 people working at major contractors such as Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas Aircraft Company, IBM, Motorola and MIT University. Converted to today, the costs were 341 billion dollars and this is the main reason why ‘we’ didn’t go back. After Apollo 11 there were 5 more other landings. Apollo 12 to 17 except 13. Kubrick? No self-respecting film director is going to make the same movie SIX times from the same set with black and white camera equipment and only different actors. Also CGI didn’t exist yet. Van Allen? Astronauts are protected by their spacesuits and by the metal shell of the rocket. Moreover, they fly shortly through the least strong belts. Why no stars? All films and photos were taken during daylight. Trying to get stars in a photo will result in an overexposed photo. Are all the data lost? No. The Apex tape recordings of the TV broadcast and telemetry were overwritten but all the 16mm films and photos are still in the NASA Archive. Can we still see the landing sites? Both the dual rover tracks and the footprints are clearly visible in the images, which were captured and beamed back by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), the Chinese lunar satellite Chang’e 2 and the Indian lunar satellite Chandrayaan-2.
I remember sitting in my grandmas farm house in Michigan perusal Apollo 8 circle the moon. My ‘hillbilly’ uncle went outside and sat on the porch and looked up and said, “there ain’t no one flyin around the moon”. I asked him why not. He said, “They can’t get there”. I asked why. He said, “the sky is in the way” – they can’t get past the sky”…………………………………………………………………..
Epic fail. Sure, when photographing the LEM and astronauts at wrong exposure the solar brightness washes out the stars. But why, in all the missions, dont we get photos just of the stars? It would be an awesome sight – the galaxy, wide open with zero atmosphere to obscure it. Not one astronaut just looked up a single time and snapped the sky? Fishy AF.
You havent tested half of the reasons people have doubts, if the surface was dust there should be none around the moon lander after it landed, it would have all been blown away, there would also be trails of this dust movement left behind. And any dust left would have settled on those big lander feet, the stuff was said to cling and get into everything!
I have seen other articles and pictures that sho a shadow being cast in two different directions. NASA said that they used no artificial lighting in any photo, but to make a shadow, you need a light source, so two shadows in two different directions indicates two light sources. It is 20% lighter on the moon, and anyone can make a computer model to do anything, I don’t know, grabbing at straws.
anyone who think Kubrick directed the footage of the first moon landing are not a person who know or understand the style, and craft of Kubrick. When people claim this it feels like a sterotypical sport Jock suddenly for a brieaf moment was acting like a great Art knower, while in reality he could not tell 90 prosent of the works and artists apart to save his life.
Six times they had one guy orbiting while two other men were on the moon. I can’t imagine how it would feel if the guys on the moon couldn’t make it back to the orbiter and the one astronaut had to return to earth alone. It would be like being the sole survivor of a plane crash and everyone asking, “Why you? Why were you the only one to survive?” The guilt would be unbearable….
Only had 40seconds of fuel remaining when they landed…….but managed to relaunch and hookup up with the orbiting space craft……. Doesn’t mention the overboots worn by the astronauts that made the famous footprint. All of Neil Armstrongs equipment is on display…….excepy the overboots which he left behind 🙄🤔
It is impressive that they modeled the reflection off the lunar surface in such detail, but come now: we did NOT need to do that to figure out that Buzz was being lit up by sunlight reflected off the lunar surface. I figured it out without knowing about this model. So did many other people before me.
Rather than debunking it…just imagine being the person that landed there. My mind is blown. The first human being to set foot on an alien surface. No one before or after has done what they did. People pray to men that haven’t done what these men did. I am totally in awe. I hope the government funds Nasa better than it has in the past. Nasa is our future.
Does Teflon block radiation? PTFE has never been recognized for its performance in high radiation environments, as it tends to degrade. But it also can gain some favorable material properties in certain applications. Explore more on the crystallinity of PTFE. At these exposure levels, PTFE will lose 50% of its tensile strength.
He didn’t attempt to explain the lack of any blast crater in the photos. I always think of the article and audio where the LEM is giving the second by second report on the decent and they show and they report the dust being blown up when they were still 100 feet over the lunar surface. They were traveling horizontally so had to eventually stop their forward motion, rotate and descend to the lunar surface (the first successful landing of the LEM ever). I can’t imagine the 1/6th gravity of the moon would have been pulling the LEM down that fast and it probable could have settled upon the surface like a spent helium balloon does on Earth (which would explain the lack of a blast crater) but if that were the case I would expect some audio saying they were waiting for the weak lunar gravity to pull them down.
he is absolutely right about the reflection of light on the moon. If it did not reflect the sun’s light, and buzz should be darker, then we wouldn’t ever see the moon in the night sky. How do we see the moon in the night sky, you ask? Well, the moon emits no light, so the one and only reason for you to even see the moon in space, would be that it can reflect the sun’s light.
𝗢𝗯𝘃𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗹𝘆 𝗵𝗼𝗮𝘅 𝗨𝗦 𝗛𝗼𝗹𝗹𝘆𝘄𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗹𝘂𝗻𝗮𝗿 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴.. No stars in picture Flag wavering No crater below the landing module but footmark even 1/6 gravity Same horizon background pictures Shadows everywhere in different directions How you fit the rover, astronauts + 66 hours of oxygen tanks into the module How lunar module connected back to command module and return back to earth.. How the astronauts survived the Van Allen radiation belt around earth.. Why we still could not see the left over flag and rover on moon surface till today..
NASA SP287 ” WHAT MADE APOLLO A SUCCESS ??? ” ” of course, the way we got this job done was with meeting, big meetings, little meeting hundreds of meetings ! ” the thing we always tried to do in these meetings (( was to encourage every one no matter how shy to speak out !!! ” )) WHY encourage every one NO MATTER HOW SHY TO SPEAK SOMETHING OUT !!! IS ULTIMATE SECRET TO ” MADE APOLLO A SUCCESS ??? ” YOU CAN GO TO THE MOON WITH ” DON’T SHY TO SPEAK SOMETHING OUT ??? ” shy for speak what ? ( apollo 11 press conference )
Hysterical that they can’t use real photography to show how things happened. Gotta use cgi to prove something actually happened the way they claim it does. Its not like they could animate it to show you exactly what they want you to see or anything like that. This literally proves how much they can fake and to me, it all seems fake and waste of money. Just be a movie production company and give us our tax dollars back.
I’ve got decades of experience with global illumination and radiosity rendering, and the softness of illumination on his space suite raises eyebrows simply because we’re dealing with a harsh, single directional light source from the Sun and, although the surface of the moon is well lit and bright, the rays that are hitting it will not bounce back in the direction they came from to illuminate what’s in the shadow… you wouldn’t get that effect even on Earth on a sunny day without a large reflector surface pointed back into the shade. There is no way you can “simulate” this accurately without tweaking the material and light parameters until you achieve a likeness…. so you’ve not proven or debunked anything.
Anyone that has even the most basic knowledge of photography/astrophotography knows why you cant see the stars in the photos, or why the astronaut is lit up in shadow. The moon is lit up like a firecracker, light reflects off the moons surface from all angles. As for stars, once again, the moon is so bright that the exposure time is reduced to stop the image being over exposed, this means the less bright stars do not show.