This Is Why The Moon Landing Couldn't Have Been Faked

Submitted by: fancylad 3 months ago in Science


Adam of Adam Ruins Everything says faking the moon landing in '69 would've been harder than just going to the moon.
There are 71 comments:
Male 2,979
Interesting. Any rebuttals to the points discussed in the video?

*Didn't think so.
1
Reply
48
you think that fat dot head bitches pussy smells like curry powder?
-2
Reply
Female 5,052
this is all I have to say about that...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z9yNHIolnM
0
Reply
Male 5,286
0
Reply
Male 5,286
rumham da moon rulez 420 4 eva #hashtag
0
Reply
Male 10,931
another poor repost


Videos like these don't really help anything to quell the 50 year span since the supposed landing, which more and more people are raising question about due to the poor nature of the 'evidence'.
-11
Reply
Male 1,634
monkwarrior So how exactly DID they get those shadows parallel when that photo was taken in the 60's then?  Please, enlighten us with your knowledge.
0
Reply
Male 10,931
waldo863 you're the one bringing up shadows, but there's many examples of shadows that are leading to suspicion of the flimsy evidence.
0
Reply
Male 1,634
monkwarrior Umm, actually, the video up above that we are discussing brought up shadows.  By responding to it in a top level post and not in response to someone else, you are responding to the video about shadows.  Anyone with an ounce of intellect can see that.  Otherwise, why are you commenting in a video about the shadows?

So, now that we are clear, we are talking about the shadows, please tell me how they created those parallel shadows in the 60s.
0
Reply
Male 10,931
waldo863 pay attention, i wasn't talking about shadows.
0
Reply
Male 1,634
monkwarrior You said, and I quote:
 Videos like these don't really help anything to quell the 50 year span since the supposed landing, which more and more people are raising question about due to the poor nature of the 'evidence'. 

Your words, not mine.  VIDEOS LIKE THIS, which is a video about shadows, then say "due to the poor nature of the 'evidence'.  The evidence provided in the video you are talking about is SHADOWS.  If you weren't talking about shadows, why are you bringing up the evidence in the video?
0
Reply
Male 10,931
waldo863 Great, point out where i talked about shadows.  That's right, i didn't.
0
Reply
Male 1,634
monkwarrior I just did.  If you can't see it, you are even stupider than I thought.  
0
Reply
Male 10,931
waldo863 oh you want to make a grasp at straws that i was talking about shadows, i gotcha
0
Reply
Male 1,634
monkwarrior Please explain why you are responding to a video about shadows with words like "videos like this" and "the poor nature of the evidence".

The evidence in the video was shadows.  You said the evidence is poor while referencing this video.  Why did you make a reference to "videos like this" if you are not talking about them?  What are you talking about when you say the evidence is poor if not this video?

Actually, never mind.  Like always, you are just talking out of your ass and not saying anything at all.
0
Reply
Male 10,931
waldo863 videos like this that try to push the 'official narrative'.
0
Reply
Male 1,634
monkwarrior then please, disprove this video.  If the evidence is not sound, please tell me how they did that in the 60s when the equipment to do so did not exist.
0
Reply
Male 10,931
waldo863 i have no need to disprove it,  this video does nothing more to resolve the fact that flimsy evidence isn't flimsy, instead it's almost to the point of being apologetic. 
0
Reply
Male 1,634
monkwarrior ok, so you're just trolling then.  The evidence is there and it can't be disproved, so we did go to the moon and you are just a troll.
0
Reply
Male 10,931
waldo863 You're the one whose trolling, son.
0
Reply
Male 1,634
monkwarrior Uh huh, because I'm the one going around saying the evidence in videos like this does nothing, while refusing to actually discuss the evidence in this video.  Yup, I'm a troll, not a person trying to have a discussion about the topic at hand.
0
Reply
Male 10,931
waldo863 then you're not listening, as videos like these are a waste of time.
0
Reply
Male 1,634
monkwarrior The evidence has been provided.  If you care to refute it with some actual evidence, I would appreciate it.  Otherwise, you are just trolling.  

Seriously, if it's a waste of time and the evidence is not satisfactory, please explain why instead of just saying so.  The evidence is compelling and I do not see how the shadows in any of the evidence pictures could have been falsified at the time they were made.  It's pretty concrete evidence.  You are just choosing to ignore it and not actually discuss anything.
0
Reply
Male 10,931
waldo863 Again, as mentioned twice already this video does nothing more to resolve the fact that flimsy evidence isn't flimsy, instead it's almost to the point of being apologetic.  
0
Reply
Male 1,634
monkwarrior It's not flimsy.  It's actually very solid.  How else would they have gotten those shadows parallel like that in the 60s?  What equipment existed that would have made that possible?

If you can even show me one far-fetched thing that would have been remotely possible, I'll agree the evidence is flimsy.  Nothing I know of could have done that though.
0
Reply
Male 10,931
waldo863 flimsy evidence of the 'achievement'.
0
Reply
Male 43,033
monkwarrior   More and more people don't believe Elvis is dead..... doesn't make them right
2
Reply
Male 10,931
Gerry1of1  The point is the evidence is not good enough, hasn't stood the test of time, and 50 years since we 'supposedly' went really raises the question if we even did go.  The younger generation is doubting it more in growing numbers. 
-3
Reply
Male 43,033
monkwarrior    What would be the point of this deception that involves many thousands of people ?
1
Reply
Male 10,931
Gerry1of1 Arrogance?  Pride?  If they couldn't make it to the moon and wanted to save that, doesn't seem too far fetched that they would fake it, hmm  after all isn't that a motto in your nation 'fake it till you make it'?  And as for thousands of people, "need to know" comes to mind 
-1
Reply
Male 5,286
monkwarrior you need to gain more power from your foes, so you can become level 5.! derp champwaronk

2
Reply
Male 10,931
rumham run along troll
-1
Reply
39
monkwarrior so, do you also believe the earth is flat?
1
Reply
Male 1,611
bret_watson He does actually. Wish I were kidding.
0
Reply
Male 10,931
bret_watson so, do you live by western media delusions a lot?
0
Reply
Male 1,370
monkwarrior Its impossibly difficult to present a complete response to the conspiracy theorists that believe the landing was faked.  Primarily because the kind of folks that hold this belief are not those that are persuaded with facts.  You cannot alter the facts to fit their theories, therefore the facts are wrong.  If you address all their points of concern 1 by 1, they do one, or all, of the following:

1) Oh yeah, what about ___________
2) Oh, you have those answers tied up all the loose ends so neatly.  Its obviously a prepared answer
3) I've run the math formulas posted in various locations, and it shows the official explanation is wrong

Simply put, they do not want their belief to be wrong.  They believe it to be correct despite all the evidence out there, and that's good enough for them.
3
Reply
Male 9
punko This is exactly how Trump supporters work.
0
Reply
Male 10,931
punko The point is the evidence is not good enough, hasn't stood the test of time, and 50 years since we 'supposedly' went really raises the question if we even did go.  The younger generation is doubting it more in growing numbers.
-2
Reply
Male 1,634
monkwarrior Then how DID they get those shadows to be parallel?
0
Reply
Male 10,931
waldo863 i never brought up shadows, you did.  There's many shadows that lead people to question the flimsy evidence.
0
Reply
Male 1,634
monkwarrior So being able to pull out a telescope and see the flag we put there isn't good enough evidence?  Really?
1
Reply
Male 10,931
waldo863 ahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!ahahahahaha

"So being able to pull out a telescope and see the flag we put there isn't good enough evidence?  Really?"


Go on, find me that telescope that someone can purchase, set up somewhere on earth away from all the lights, and then zoom enough to see the 'flag we put there'.  That is all i'm asking.  When you can come back with that telescope that someone can buy and go independently validate something that small on the surface of the moon, let me know.  When you don't find it, remind yourself to not use that argument ever again, until you can find one
0
Reply
Male 1,014
monkwarrior It's your problem that you cannot properly evaluate the evidence. You claim you have seen all the evidence there is to see, YET you don't show understanding of physics. You'll copy/paste arguments you found online, but you can't defend them.

You're right that younger generations will doubt it in larger numbers. In 1999 Gallup found that 6% of US population believed moon landing was staged and 5% were unsure. Almost 2 decades later, the moon has not been in the news, and young generations will not have heard much about it at all. They'll know about the international space station, they'll know about the Mars missions, but the APOLLO program is just distant history. 
1
Reply
Male 10,931
boredhuman I can evaluate evidence quite well, but their  'evidence', especially a lot of their video evidence leaves much to be desired.  However you can't make the claim the evidence is valid without appealing to an authority (NASA).  For example it's already been found that some of the 'moonrocks' they gave out turned out to be 'petrified wood'.  
-1
Reply
Male 1,014
monkwarrior "I can evaluate evidence quite well" you haven't showed it. Evaluate the evidence brought in the comedy central video: point by point. Go ahead...

"appealing to an authority" You misunderstand this fallacy (some don't even consider a fallacy). No one here claims "... just because NASA said so." Instead, I'd quote the reasons and evidence NASA has presented - that's not appeal to authority. Counter the NASA evidence/reasons - you can't simply dismiss them as lies. It's your burden to prove they're lies.

"For example it's already been found... " Nice try changing the topic. You can't argue the evidence, so you present other evidence. 

But you don't want to discuss actual evidence, do you? You'd rather talk about anything but physics. 
1
Reply
Male 10,931
boredhuman Why would i waste my time with a video like this?  People are claiming the moon landing happened based on the flimsy 'evidence' nasa showed.  The evidence has led a lot of people to question, myself included, and i've studied this topic since i was a wee lil lad.  I was pretty upset when i found that there was reason to doubt the grand claims.  But I've come to live with it, as the longer we don't go back (assuming we even went), the more unlikely the achievement was.  In fact, with NASA people saying "we lost the technology to go to the moon", like some huge army invaded and destroyed all their information, when nothing like that happens, raises suspicion.  So you don't want to address the issue of Moonrooks found to be petrified wood.
-1
Reply
Male 1,014
monkwarrior "Why would i waste my time with a video like this?" Because it destroys flimsy 'evidence' for a fake moon landing. You can't counter even this comedy central video...

"i've studied this topic since i was a wee lil lad" What was the process? Watching one conspiracy video after another? Reading conspiracy theory books? Or have you actually studied rocket science and rocket history? Based on how you avoid physics/science I have to assume you weren't interested in science...

"In fact, with NASA people saying "we lost the technology to go to the moon"" Another red herring. Another attempt to change the topic.

"So you don't want to address the issue of Moonrooks found to be petrified wood." No, I don't. 

You don't want to discuss actual evidence, do you? Anything but physics! 
0
Reply
Male 10,931
boredhuman it doesn't destroy anything.  The flimsy evidence is still flimsy.  This video does nothing more to claim that it isn't flimsy, almost to the point of being apologetic.

When i was a little lad i studied every book in the school library about space.  I wanted to become an astronaut like so many others.  I studied everything in that library, and in the public library, and then in the other schools i went to.  We got the internet and i studied everything i could, there was a lot.  But eventually, after reading so much, i started having questions and suspicions about some things, and just left them because i loved learning about space and space travel.  As i looked more into it, and especially with the scaled back space missions, i began to find more things that gave me pause to think "is this for real?".  I began to find others asking some of the questions that i had, things that didn't add up, and eventually i had to step back from it all and just put the whole achievement in the "in question" box in my mind.  As time wore on i found more questions raised, some very good ones that really increased the depth of that box.  Now i stand saying that the evidence is not convincing enough, and i can fully understand why people question it.  I feel the only way that it can be resolved at this point is for humankind to begin establishing a growing colony on the moon, or some more evidence, not the same old refurbished and enhanced 'evidence' that they have been peddling for nearly 1/2 a century.

"In fact, with NASA people saying "we lost the technology to go to the moon"" Another red herring. Another attempt to change the topic.

Not at all, directly from a NASA astronaut: click

"So you don't want to address the issue of Moonrooks found to be petrified wood." No, I don't. 

Well people are wondering why it's petrified wood, when it was claimed to be a moon rock.  It really might be something you'd want to look at.  You're in no position to claim i don't want to discuss evidence when you're ignoring evidence yourself ^
0
Reply
Male 1,014
monkwarrior "But eventually, after reading so much, i started having questions and suspicions about some things, and just left them because i loved learning about space and space travel." Well, you should have asked teachers, adults - people who could actually answer your questions. Out of curiosity: what were your early questions/suspicions that you never got answers to?

"I feel the only way that it can be resolved at this point is for humankind to begin establishing a growing colony on the moon..." Woah! This makes absolutely no sense.

"old refurbished and enhanced 'evidence'" What "new" evidence could there be of a moon landing that happened 50 years ago?
The moon ranging experiment is still going on, so I guess you could call that "new" evidence. The Lunar reconnaissance arbiter took "new" pictures. If by "new evidence" you mean another manned lunar mission - no, there is no new evidence!

Do you closely follow the Orion space craft news? It's slated to go around the moon in 2019. There are also plans to build the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway. Do you keep track of all these developments?

"NASA astronaut: click" This vague quote is all there is to it? It's on the same level Tom Murphy saying Apollo 11 was "earth mission". What Pettit was saying, is that it would be expensive to re-build and re-test the equipment to get back to the moon. It would need to be done essentially from scratch. Read this article.

"Well people are wondering why it's petrified wood, when it was claimed to be a moon rock." I read the article before, and there is nothing to comment... Maybe the rock got stolen and replaced in the span of 50 years... Maybe it was a misunderstanding... The fact is, there are moon rocks in museums all around the world

Again, I expect you won't touch the comedy central video, you won't discuss physics or science... I'm fine with that. 
1
Reply
Male 10,931
boredhuman I can see this is going to go nowhere, the bottom line is that the extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary achievement is not convincing.  New evidence is needed, such as a return to the moon (assuming we went at all).  It's supposedly 3 days away, but it's been 50 years of many 3 days of not going.  It's like the claims of the 'space age' was a dud: it should have been called "the low earth orbit age" (assuming we can even do that).
-2
Reply
Male 1,634
monkwarrior So because you don't understand lighting and how impossible it would be to create those parallel shadows in the 60's, it's not convincing.

If you really think that is true, than please tell me how to create shadows like that in the 60s.
0
Reply
Male 10,931
waldo863 The evidence is not convincing.  I understand you think it is, but many question the evidence, as it's too poor quality.
0
Reply
Male 1,014
monkwarrior "the bottom line is that the extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary achievement is not convincing." The faked moon landing is the extraordinary achievement in question here. Your paltry evidence of petrified wood and vague statement by an astronaut are not convincing.

"I can see this is going to go nowhere" Agreed. You just don't have the prerequisite physics knowledge to be able to engage in a fruitful discussion. It's a wise move to end it here. 
1
Reply
Male 10,931
boredhuman say all you like, but the evidence remains flimsy and in question. In fact you can't prove the achievement to yourself without overlooking and dismissing many things, as you have already shown your willingness to do.
0
Reply
Male 4,866
I'm going to leave this hear for everyone to rewatch.  I miss these guys :(

Mythbusters
https://vimeo.com/255327576
1
Reply
Male 1,014
Re-post from 4 months ago.

Let me get you up to speed on the tin-foil argument countering the retro-reflector. The experts at the flat-earth society have it all figured out: 
"The retro-reflector cannot aim light back towards earth at an offset - it can only reflect back at the exact angle the light was received, so the reflection will be aiming exactly at the apparent position of the light source at the moment it is received - and by that time the apparent position will be 34.32 km off from the true position on earth's surface, and the light will therefore be 68.64 km off from that position when it is reflected back to the earth."

Here's a more in-depth bullshit analysis of retro-reflectors.

If you'd like to learn more about retro-reflectors, here's a great video explanation by Tom Murphy.
- Using lasers to accurately measure the distance to the moon, we can actually tell the internal composition of the moon (molten core, which changes the shape of the moon based on how close it is to the earth).
- A lost, Soviet moon rover was found.
- However, a slip-up reveals it's all a hoax - Apollo 11 was an "earth mission" (25:18)! 
2
Reply
Male 220
boredhuman correct me if I am wrong but your picture shows the moon and the earth as having roughly similar orbital speeds. I dont have to tell you this is wrong do I?
0
Reply
Male 1,014
aegis1294 "your picture shows the moon and the earth as having roughly similar orbital speeds." the picture was taken from the flat earth forum, which was used to support their argument: how can the same facility both send and receive laser signal, when the signal will not return to the same spot?!

"I dont have to tell you this is wrong do I?"
You don't. The picture is wrong for other reasons - it shows misunderstanding of physics. The point of the picture is that the returning light would lag behind - in fact it would not. If the earth did not rotate, the signal would return to the exact spot it was sent out from. It is true that the signal doesn't return exactly where it was sent from, but the distance is small enough to not make a difference.
0
Reply
Male 220
boredhuman my b, thought you were actually trying to make that argument.
0
Reply
Male 9,080
boredhuman OH PONG!  Oh I need to answer in the form of a question...What is Pong?  What do I win?
0
Reply
Male 1,014
normalfreak2 No... Beep beep beep. The correct answer is "proof." Back to you, monkwarrior
0
Reply
Male 4,866
boredhuman Great post.

This is a link to an outdated site I used the first time I came across 2 people I worked with and the conspiracy theory.  It was about 15 years ago now.  I was dumbfounded when the conspiracy was first presented to me.  I actually contacted the author and he helped me point to specific details the two were convinced were reasons why it was faked, specifically the Van Allen Belt dispute.  After reading the information on the site and what the author wrote directly to me, there were 2 less conspiracy theorist on this Earth :)

https://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/
0
Reply
Male 43,033
-1
Reply
Male 2,098
0
Reply
Male 4,022
bliznik and then cave johnson promptly bought all of it and turned into conversion gel which makes excellent portal conductors. SCIENCE!!
0
Reply
Male 854
robthelurker A shame that drinking it didn't cure him like he hoped.  The world lost a real man of science that day.
0
Reply
Male 4,949
That was well done and funny. I really liked when the laser reflected back and hit the guy in the eye. 
0
Reply
Male 9,080
Anyone with a working brain knows we went to the Moon.  As we'll soon find out, before the Derp Vortex establishes a foothold, here some of us do not have a working brain.
1
Reply
Male 43,033
normalfreak2 This is the U S of A JACK!   
We can believe the Earth is flat, Evolution isn't real, and the Moon landing is fake!

0
Reply
Male 9,589
1
Reply
Male 4,866
megrendel I miss Debra :(
0
Reply