Jon Ronson's For the Love of Lunar Conspiracy 

Hahaha

He's an amusing devil...

kevin bill, that is pretty damn well put.

Thanks

@daro2096 that was my point, you don't need "huge blasters" to break the moons gravity, he was suggesting they were the same as the ones needed to get a rocket with hundreds of tons of fuel to break earth's gravity

@daro2096 Not quite sure what your point is there? He said something wrong I pointed it out, I'm not interested in any kind or Trumpian "mis-spoke" scenario, otherwise there would never be any point in making comments

All theorizing and no research makes Jack a dull boy.

wonder if Kubrick was watching in St Albans that night?

Dr. No!

...on Boxing Day.

I think it was either Thunderball, or You Only Live Twice.

TheSecretVault with hair

1997

@Paul Grey Prove it.

@Paul Grey Thankyou for a better response. _"...reflectors on the moon. We can prove it in observatories."_ - Which observatories have picked out these reflectors? I understand that not even the Hubble Space Telescope can discern evidence of the Apollo landings. _"...two from the Russian Luna missions"_ - Presumably by their probes, since the Russians haven't stepped on the moon, correct? In which case, it could be argued that the U.S placed reflectors on the moon in the same way. If so, then the presence of U.S reflectors wouldn't prove the Apollo missions were genuine. _"Since you can tell three american reflectors have footprints around them and placed in perfect shape..."_ - But the skeptic will ask how do you know the photographs of the reflectors with foot prints around them were taken on the moon? _"radiation crap seriously it was 0.18 rads safe as houses actually it's same as a CAT scan.....they used Van Allen belt in trans lunar injection it isn't radiation it's charged particles."_ - Right. Why then, does NASA today describe the Van Allen belts as "an area of dangerous radiation"? And that "we [NASA] must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space?" They managed it easily enough 50 years ago (apparently) with 50 year old tech. But today they're struggling to figure stuff out. Can you explain why? _"Plus apollo 8 in 1968 came back safe and took amazing pictures on earth."_ - I'm sure of the relevance of Apollo 8 to Apollo 11. _"Are we suppose to believe that thousands of employees faked apollo moon missions and astronauts..."_ - No, of course not. The project was compartmentalized. Very few would need to be in on the hoax (if it was one). _"since JFK mentioned it earlier in 1962...."_ - JFK talking about it doesn't prove it was real. That logically doesn't follow. _"Moon Shine"_ - Can you explain how the moon shine lit up the shadow side of the LEM so beautifully, but doesn't light up the shadow side of rocks which remain completely black? _"Flag wavered no it didn't it was illusion that it did flag was made from tinfoil."_ - Well, the flags do flap around, but the debunk says it's because it was in a vacuum with no air resistance to slow it's movements down. That might be true enough in most cases of flag waving, but there _are_ a few instances where no astronaut is manipulating the flag and it starts moving from a still position. So this still isn't solved. _"...moon rocks..."_ - Moon rocks have been found on Earth before as meteorites and unmanned probes collected some of it, although I'd agree that unmanned probes were unlikely, and maybe incapable, of collecting the amount of moon rock they claim to have. _"There is other issues they address but find it's all fallacious nonsense."_ - There's quite a lot more actually.

@Paul Grey Yes, I get that the ground reflected light onto the shadow side of the LEM and off Aldrin as he stepped down the ladder. I'm just curious to know why rocks are not similarly lit up by reflected light, which instead are as black as the shadows they cast. _"Flags on moon didn't flap some were an illusion or rippling to think that."_ - We'll use the word "moved". I understand that they moved after being handled. But there are a few instances where the flags are moving (from a stationary position) when no astronaut is touching them. Maybe Aldrin farted? :o) Yes, I won't argue with experts who understand rocks and their compositions. I do think they went and walked on the moon, but there are still a few things that don't add up. I have a suspicion that at least part of the visual record was studio shot as 'back up' material in case the originals didn't come out too well, and that maybe some of that stock was slipped into the record with the genuine material from the moon. After all, with so much at stake and with the world watching, the last thing they'd want are tv cameras that malfunction and photos that get spoiled. Just a thought.

@Paul Grey "_Rocks on the moon still reflect light"_ No, I'm talking about the shadow side of rocks, which are as black as the shadows they cast. The question being; why doesn't light reflected from the moon's surface light up the dark side of these rocks, as occurs with the LM and astronauts? _"Flag moved because pole was disturbed after it was planted into the ground there was lack of strong gravity on the Moon..."_ No, I'm talking about a few instances where astronauts are _not_ handling the flags and thus not disturbing the poles. _"I know we did go to the moon but hard to convince some people."_ Don't want to be pedantic, but nobody actually _knows_ for sure except the men who went there and those closely involved with Apollo, or tracking them. But I agree the evidence that they did go, is stronger than the case for saying they hoaxed it. As for moon rocks, like I said, I won't argue with rock experts. If they say they're from the moon, then so be it. I'm not qualified to prove them wrong (assuming I wanted to).

@Paul Grey There are some large rocks (i'm not sure which missions) where the shadow side of those rocks are completely black and not brightened by the ground reflected light, unlike the LM's shadow side which is lit up by the ground reflection. I wouldn't call that evidence of a hoax, but it's odd nonetheless. - The examples where the flags move independently are in cases where they are motionless to begin with, then start moving for no obvious reason.

The Astronauts were highly paid and all Masons. If you look at the news conference after the event they all look like they're scared to death, not triumphant and jubilant as anyone who tread on the moon would do.

​@@hendo337 but why not just pretend that they went up there?

@@sebastianmittelman4071 maybe they had some conscious about it all and couldn't pretend properly. They were probably just ultra concentrated on not making a mistake answering the questions.

@thePiercingTruth I should clarify, I do believe they went to the moon, I should rephrase what I wrote. Why can't the astronauts make pretend and say that they DID go in the space ship. Rather than actually go in the space ship in case it blows up. Would you risk your life even for a huge check for such a thing? personally I wouldn't. Why can't they concoct a plan in which they pretend to go inside the rocket, the rocket has special scientific protective suits or metal inside to protect the astronauts from harm if it did blow up and then pull a cowboy switch?

@thePiercingTruth "rockets can blow up sure, your car can blow, up a bus can blow up, airplanes can blow up as well as fall out of the sky but you still use these things don't you? " Yes but by comparison rockets are a rarer occurrence. I've never been on a rocket nor would I ever want to because by comparison its more unstable. And those vehicles aren't designed, like rockets, use tens of thousands of gallons of rocket fuel in a tiny space of time. That and in a rocket you are sitting on a flame thats thousands of degrees in Fahrenheit. Whereas in a car, sure the engine might be an unstable area but in comparison its contained fairly safely ie. you aren't sitting on a ribbon of fire thats as hot as the sun. Also, the radiation is an issue whereas yeah a plane might have similar risks to a rocket just on a superficial level but exposure and radiation less of a risk when I fly than if I took of in a rocket and went to space, even LEO.

Lost at sea is decent too,Them is a great book

@thePiercingTruth What is you evidence?

Influential and connected people are involved in movies (especially back in the 50s/60s/70s and insiders often reveal things through movies...I guess you think Star Wars was about a Galaxy far, far away you illiterate, clueless doughnut.

Amazing isn't it, people in the 1990s and earlier regularly did it everywhere.

Mark Angryfield I flagged you for being an a-hole.

...you seriously mentioned a sitcom as evidence? Anyway, that said, there've been many trips to the moon that didn't involve people, there's no reason you'd need a human to be there to put down any tech. That said, capricorn one would definitely have been a much better example.

He was comparing the tv footage to the picture.

@@demonrouge3338 Aldrin does push his leg out to see if he can then get up again before he goes down. You can here it on the audio.

Digitally connected and emotionally disconnected.

They're not loons. Check out Bart Sibrel's channel. Now I don't believe man went to the moon.

@@neiljones1938 The woman is unhinged and Percy is either a charlatan or deliberately obtuse and doesn't know anything about the science. e.g. 1.The very thin lunar atmosphere cannot efficiently bind surface heat to devices that are not in direct contact with it. The camera film was derived from the ones used for high-altitude photo reconnaissance, which were designed to withstand temperatures from 490°F down to - 40°F, and they were housed in aluminium magazines covered with reflective passive optical coatings. The radiation exposure level on the Moon from the distance of space was not enough to damage the film. It was much less than that of an airport x-ray machine’s direct radiation from a distance of less than a few feet. It had the same effect equivalent to leaving the film on a shelf for six months on Earth. And, of course in 1969, film was often left on shelves for far longer in many cases and still used. Furthermore, there are signs of radiation contamination in some of the images, if you look carefully; for example lines running through the film, bright spots and a decrease in contrast and colour response. These effects are not easily detectable to the untrained eye and without access to the original material. 2.No LEM engine sound is detected on descent to the Moon because the astronauts’ microphones were designed to muffle extraneous sound. Also, the low-pressure rocket engine did not produce a great deal of thrust and since they were in a vacuum there was no air to carry the shockwave and vibration. I could go on and on. Sibrel is the same.

You don’t counter lunacy. This is entertainment.

No matter how looney you think it is, they should have had someone there to answer the points they were making.

Here's a few; 1. Buzz Aldrin does move his leg out to see if he can get back up again before going down. You can hear him say it on the audio. 2. High energy protons are the main types of ionising particles in the Van Allen belts along with electrons, and not electromagnetic waves e.g. ultraviolet, infrared, gamma etc. Electrons can pass through living tissue without creating much damage as they are very small. The Command Module’s outer hull was made of stainless steel and the (upper) heat shield from epoxy resin, which along with the fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls was a very effective form of shielding against protonic radiation. 3.The astronauts were not exposed to particle radiation for long enough on a short 8-12 day round trip for it to be a significant risk. In 1968 the Russian Zond 5 sent a number of biological samples around the Moon and back, including two turtles and these specimens were recovered alive upon their return to Earth. The astronauts would have been at serious risk of electromagnetic wave radiation from energetic solar flares, however the Apollo flights coincided with the height of the solar cycle, the periodic waxing and waning of activity that occurs every 11 years. The increased strength of the Sun’s magnetic field that permeates the solar system acts like an umbrella, shielding the Earth, moon and planets and therefore lessening the impact on astronaut radiation doses. 4. The very thin lunar atmosphere cannot efficiently bind surface heat to devices that are not in direct contact with it. The camera film was derived from the ones used for high-altitude photo reconnaissance, which were designed to withstand temperatures from 490°F down to - 40°F, and they were housed in aluminium magazines covered with reflective passive optical coatings. The radiation exposure level on the Moon from the distance of space was not enough to damage the film. It was much less than that of an airport x-ray machine’s direct radiation from a distance of less than a few feet. It had the same effect equivalent to leaving the film on a shelf for six months on Earth. And, of course in 1969, film was often left on shelves for far longer in many cases and still used. Furthermore, there are signs of radiation contamination in some of the images, if you look carefully; for example lines running through the film, bright spots and a decrease in contrast and colour response. These effects are not easily detectable to the untrained eye and without access to the original material. 5. No LEM engine sound is detected on descent to the Moon because the astronauts’ microphones were designed to muffle extraneous sound. Also, the low-pressure rocket engine did not produce a great deal of thrust and since they were in a vacuum there was no air to carry the shockwave and vibration.

@@Ruda-n4h This is what we need more. Sound counter arguments. It may seem ridiculous that is needed but more science to counter these documentaries please.

@thePiercingTruth There are counter arguments to all their points. And your point proves that education has gone downhill in the last 50 years.

@thePiercingTruth No mystery at all.

breakit46 looks like Noel Edmonds on smack

@Paul Grey think I need to watch them again,His secret rulers of the world series was good

Didn't they take some artificial lighting with them to the moon? That would blow all the "the shadows are wrong" theories out of the water.

The moon still has a light source (i.e. the sun) but it will hit the moon at a different angle. He is working on the assumption that light works the same on the moon as on earth.

@thePiercingTruth None of these critics knows much about the subject, they have a poor grasp of science and their 'evidence' can be easily refuted. Bennett is slightly unhinged and Percy is a either a charlatan or deliberately obtuse.

Bart Sibrel's channel. Ahem.

@@neiljones1938 Bart is also an obtuse charlatan best suited to remaining a taxi driver.