Did We Really Land on the Moon?

[richard_smith237]

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

"No matter how much evidence you show that proves the moon landings were faked, there are people who will still believe they were real.

No matter how much evidence you show that proves the moon landings were real, there are people who will still believe they were faked."

(I just made that up.)

 

 

I wanted to deal with your comments...   gave up thinking an single word response surfaces....  I then I realised you have gone into a lot of effort to write your post, so I I'll responding, highlighting why the comments are not very intelligent rather than using a single word to describe the comments in aggregate. 

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

And yes, NASA DID lose the original photos and negatives from the moon landings. They were "accidentally" destroyed was the official explanation when people wanted to see them to find out things like why there are stars in the background of most moon photos. And why the shadows don't seem to match the objects in many shots.

There's a wiki entry about the "missing tapes" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes#Search_for_the_missing_tapes

And why was the flag they planted "waving" as though there was a breeze ? (NASA tried to claim they had the flag specifically made so that it would "look" like it was blowing in a breeze - on a moon with no atmosphere or wind.)

 

Simply answered - the flag appeared to flutter as if in the wind due to the movement and vibrations caused by the astronauts handling it, along with the flexible metal rod holding it upright. The lack of atmospheric resistance on the Moon allowed these motions to continue longer than they would on Earth.

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

And why is it that photos of Earth, taken from the Moon, appear to be the SAME size as photos of the moon when taken from Earth ?

It is NOT "perception". "Perception" would be seeing two different sized objects in front of you at different distances and thinking the closest one is larger when it's not.

 

Focal length - something anyone with the most basic knowledge of photography understands. 

I can make a moon look larger or smaller in any photo depending upon how I shoot it.

 

When accounting for zoom, the apparent size of Earth in photos taken from the Moon, and the Moon in photos taken from Earth, depends on the focal length of the camera lens used. A camera with a higher zoom (longer focal length) can make either object appear larger than it would to the naked eye.

However, if similar zoom levels are used, the Earth and Moon appear roughly the same size in their respective photos because the larger size of Earth is offset by its greater distance from the Moon. The balance between actual size and distance creates a comparable apparent size in both cases.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

The distance from the Earth to the Moon is literally exactly the same as the distance from the Moon to the Earth.
But the Earth is SIX times larger than the moon so why doesn't it appear SIX times larger in photos taken on the lunar surface ?

Here's a simple test. Take a basket ball and a softball (or a soccer ball and a tennis ball) and set them a meter apart on a table.

Stand behind the larger ball and look at the smaller one. Now stand behind the smaller ball and look at the larger one. 

 

Focal length is defined as the distance from the principal plane of the lens system to the focal point on the sensor, where collimated light rays converge after refraction. It directly affects the field of view and angular magnification, with longer focal lengths yielding narrower fields of view and higher spatial resolution, thereby amplifying the apparent size of distant celestial bodies like the Moon or Earth in photographic imaging.

 

If thats too much... here, in simpler terms: Imagine you have a magical telescope that can zoom in or out. If you zoom in a lot, faraway things like the Moon or Earth look bigger in pictures. If you don’t zoom, they look smaller, just like toys do when you see them from far away!

 

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

According to the NASA photos - they should appear to be the same size. But in reality, if you were on the surface of the smaller ball and looking at the bigger one, it would appear HUGE by comparison.

 

No... because of that 'magical telescope' (focal length) - images of the moon from the earth and of the earth from the moon are not taken with the same cameras.... 

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

I do have an image supposedly taken by a Chinese satellite that was scanning the "dark side" of the moon - so that the camera captured the (back side) of the moon with the Earth beyond that.

Amazing how much different that is compared to the "looking at Earth from the lunar surface photos we've seen from NASA".

 

Image (#2) - too far away from the moon - its synthesised. 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

Here's another oddity. 

The current Artemis missions. 

The stated purpose of the Artemis 1 mission was to "examine the conditions astronauts would face on the lunar surface".
That statement made me sit up and gasp !

 

So it should - you were reading a load of rubbish, you should have remained laying down so you could have a better nights sleep and assimilate information more accurately.

 

Artemis 1 mission completed in late 2022, was an un-crewed test flight, which orbited and flew beyond the Moon, its purpose to test rockets, heat shields and was a test bed for engineering.

 

Artemis 2 will be a crewed flight beyond the Moon which will take humans the farthest they’ve ever been in space.

 

Artemis 3 will be the first crewed Moon landing mission since Apollo 17 in 1972. NASA aims to land the first female astronaut and first astronaut of colour on the lunar surface. They will spend a week on the Moon performing scientific studies, before returning to Earth.

 

Artemis 4 will deliver a core part of a new lunar space station (named 'Gateway') into orbit around the Moon, and land another two astronauts on the Moon's surface.

 

Artemis 5 will add another important module to Gateway and involve a third crewed lunar landing to undertake further surface science.

 

There is nothing odd about any of that.

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

Excuse me ? 6 "crewed moon landings" between '69 and '72 and NASA doesn't know what "conditions" astronauts on the Artemis 2 mission will face ?

What, did they lose all that information as well ? It's not like the moon has undergone "climate change" over the last 50 years so how is it they apparently don't know what the astronauts will face when they land on the surface ?

 

They didn't loose any information - the Artemis missions are laying the ground work for missions to Mars.

No information lost, more information needed - basis processes of science and engineering. 

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

And here's a laugh. 
The first "moon landing" was in July 1969.

 

True - but whats your point ? you expected to be on Marx on 1975 ??...  tech has to develop.

There also needs to be economic viability - do we need to go back to the moon at all, or Mars ???

Scientific advancement by all means - will we find a cure for cancer on Mars ??? 

Perhaps at the very least a cure for stupidity, but I doubt that.

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

Diamonds are Forever was a James Bond film released in Dec 1971, just over 2 years later. But the script was written long before that, the sets produced, actors rehearsed and so on. Filming actually started in April 1971 but the script was approved long before that.

And who can forget the scene where Bond is trying to escape from Willard Whyte's facility (controlled by Bloefeld) and he crashes through a wall - into the middle of a fake moon landing set with a lunar lander, "astronauts" on wires hopping around and - a  lunar buggy !
(Apollo 15 was the first mission to use a "Lunar Roving Vehicle" and that mission landed in July 1971 - months after the Bond film had already started filming.)

 

Ah... they used the Bond set, brilliant - I think I already 'go out ahead of this level of stupidity' in my earlier comment (abou the "fly me to the moon"  'documentary' !!!) 

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

Makes you wonder where they got the idea in that film to create a fake moon landing scene - long before anyone even thought to question if the moon landings were real !
And they had a "moon buggy" (which Bond used to escape into the desert) - even before NASA put one on the moon ! 

How did the writers "guess" about all that ? Or get the idea that the landings were fake and include that scene in the movie ?

 

I know right...  How did George Lucas know about Light Sabres and Star Destroyers ???

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

Here is the image supposedly taken by the Chinese satellite. Note how small the moon is compared to Earth. As mentioned, Earth is about 6 times larger than the moon so it makes sense it would appear much larger in any photo.



Now imagine you are on the surface of the moon, looking back at the Earth.

This is the Apollo 11 photo taken in July 1969 from the moon:


And this is the Apollo 12 "Earth Shot" taken on 19 Nov 1969.



Isn't it funny how the Earth looks the same size as the Moon does when viewed from Earth ?

 

No, its not funny - a 5 year old can understand why that is...   Try it on your next Grindr photo...  take a nutsac photo and from the ground up and your plumbs in all their glory will look larger than your head !!!... 

 

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

Despite it being 6 times larger than the moon ?

By rights - and the laws of physics - the Earth should appear massive in those photos.

 

No... you don't understand the laws of Physics an are mistaking them for simple perspective in photography - back to the Grindr example !!

 

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

But even if you did fake a moon landing - there'd be a lot of people who would know about it, including the astronauts themselves.
(Because they would have had to been in on it as they would have noticed something was off if they took off from earth and just orbitted the planet for a couple days while another crew "faked the landing" at a studio on Earth and then they just returned to Earth themselves.

It could be done, but keeping everyone quiet about it for 50+ years ?

They couldn't make them all disappear in "accidents".

 

I saw that series of documentary about men who handle this stuff... they have a stick thingy... its easy to make people forget....  lets face it, half the people on this thread forgot their education if they had one, and they certainly forgot they are halfwits !!!.

 

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

What has always got me though was we landed people on the moon 6 times and then stopped.

And in the 55 years since then all we can do is put a ramshackle little "space station" in low Earth orbit and we can barely even keep it supplied or change the crew.

 

Valid points... 

On the first: Economic viability - Whats the point in going back to the moon unless we are going to use it as an more economically viable option to 'step' elsewhere - such as Mars.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

You'd think the Shuttles should have easily been able to make it to the Moon and back if those tiny "lunar landers" and "command modules" could.

 

Nope.. they were one stop drops....    the 'energy' needed for return of such mass made the outward journey impossible without greater technological advancement and efficiencies...   Escaping the earths gravity is a collossal exercises... 

 

Launching an energy source in to Orbit, transiting it en-masse to the moon (very slowly), then slowing it to a stable lunar orbit...  Using the moon as a 'starting point' has potentail....   at least for a black man or a woman... or preferably a paraplegic black, lesbian with dyslexia who identifies as a cucumber.... 

 

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

The Apollo 15 Lunar Module for example was 23' high and 31' wide and weighed about 11,000 pounds including fuel, water, oxygen and - Lunar Roving Module. (The Apollo 11 Lunar module was similar in size but only weighed about 8,600 pounds.)

The Space Shuttle was 56' high and 122' long. The payload bay was 60' long and 15' wide by 15' high (15' diameter). The Shuttle weighed about 172,000 pounds.

Surely if they could figure out how to get Lunar modules off the moon and back into space, and then link up with the Command  and Service module to fly back to Earth before dumping the "Service" part and using just the Command Module for the final descent.

 

No...  completely separate missions - one the sole aim of a human to the moon...  the second, the sole aim of payload delivery (i.e. building the ISS)...  in the Apollo missions, the 'human' was the payload... 

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

Yes, the shuttle was much bigger. And that means it could also carry more.

They could have built the "space station" on the Moon's surface and used the Shuttles to resupply it.

Instead they have a little ISS sitting 400 kms above the Earth.

 

 

1/6th Gravity, is still a lot of gravity....      use the moon as storage, a stepping stone... 

But really (*IMO) an orbital 'storage' system is far more mathematical - the issue is space debris.

 

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

Then again - why bother ? It's not like they can grow anything on the Moon. It doesn't have any oil. (Or the USA would have been drilling and shipping oil from there 50 years ago !).

No mention of them finding any precious metals (gold, silver, platinum or lithium) or diamonds/rubies/emeralds on the Moon either.

 

Even if they did - place value means its worthless...   kind of like finding two tonnes of gold on the top of Everest.

 

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

So there really is no value in putting anything - or anyone - on the surface for more than a short picnic. And that's a pretty expensive picnic.

 

Yes... like a 'dog pisshing up a tree'....   just to say we've been there....   Maybe LBJ thought it was a huge waste too !!!! 

 

 

5 hours ago, Kerryd said:

I wonder if Artemis 2 will carry pre-made "waving in the breeze" flags like the Apollo moon landers did ?

 

Already explained.... that stuff is just noise in a more interesting debate which you touched on....

 

Travelling further faster... Yes.. interesting.

 

Gravity experiments - massively important IMO...   one of the most important things to come out of the cold war is the ISS and the developments they have made there..... 

 

 

 

But back to the original discussion - Moon landings ???...    the who discussion is a waste...  We were there, there is so much evidence the conspiracy not go to is so much larger than just going !!!!! 

 

 

... But the crux for me... Any time I speak to someone who suspects 'humankind' never stepped foot on the moon I'm never surprised by their sheer absense of true intelligence.... just like flat earthes.

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

5 hours ago, Gobbler said:

 

We left stuff on the moon. This is what we are told. 

 

Are there any photos of the Moon showing the stuff we left? 

 

There is substantial evidence of objects left on the Moon by astronauts during the Apollo missions and robotic landers. Here are key examples:

 

Apollo Equipment: The Apollo missions (1969–1972) left behind a range of equipment, including:

Lunar Module Descent Stages: These served as landing platforms for the ascent modules.

 

Scientific Instruments: Seismometers, retroreflectors, and other experiments (e.g., the Lunar Laser Ranging Retroreflectors) that still reflect lasers sent from Earth.

 

Astronaut Tools and Personal Items: Cameras, tools, and even a family photo left by astronaut Charles Duke.

Lunar Rover Tracks: The Lunar Roving Vehicles (used in Apollo 15, 16, and 17) left tire tracks across the Moon’s surface, visible in high-resolution satellite imagery.

 

Robotic Landers: Various countries' space programmes (e.g., the Soviet Luna missions, China's Chang'e landers) have left rovers and instruments on the Moon.

 

Images from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO): NASA's LRO has captured high-resolution images of Apollo landing sites, showing leftover hardware like the descent stages, rover tracks, and astronaut footprints.

 

 

(The quality doesn't really matter because you'll refute it anyway)... 

 

 

SO... on to the real point of my response: 

Are there any photos of your intelligence - as given this discussion, the greatest doubt that exists in this thread is the ability for your brain to function in any meaningful manner beyond basic life support and questionable communication....

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tigger01]

On 1/25/2025 at 11:27 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

I remember someone explained it like this: Imagine how many people would have to be involved to fake this. And then remember that all those people would have to be quiet about that forever, maybe 50 years or more.

How likely is that?

It would be impossible

[Tigger01]

Simple answer Yes! Conspiracy theorists don't believe the Titanic sunk, 9/11 was an inside job, the earth is flat etc etc they believe this rubbish cos it was posted on YouTube by some nutter in his front room or on Facebook by an unemployed moron.

[MRMOUSE]

9 hours ago, Gobbler said:

 

I do not consider Wikipedia to be a reputable source of anything. 

How about Reuters or Associated Press?

[proton]

6 hours ago, frank83628 said:

 

Training on Earth

[Gobbler]

1 hour ago, MRMOUSE said:

How about Reuters or Associated Press?

Proven liars. 

[NoshowJones]

Great topic Charlie, although I never and still don't have a great interest in space or the moon and it has nothing to do with Thailand, I think it would be a great idea to find other topics which could be a great interest  to AN members to find out their opinions on.

How about doing something like this every month or even more, I think it would go down very well with AN members, this topic ran six pages, I'm sure there are many other topics would would be just as popular.

[Hummin]

6 hours ago, MRMOUSE said:

How about Reuters or Associated Press?

He doesn't even want to understand how the psychology behind the conspiracies. 

 

And if provoked to provide sources he just ignores you

[save the frogs]

54 minutes ago, Hummin said:

He doesn't even want to understand how the psychology behind the conspiracies. 

maybe for some people, there's a psychology of why they get into conspiracies.

 

but that's also an argument by the powers that be to discredit all conspiracies. conspiracy theorists all have psychological issues, therefore it's all bs. 

 

[Hummin]

3 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

maybe for some people, there's a psychology of why they get into conspiracies.

 

but that's also an argument by the powers that be to discredit all conspiracies. conspiracy theorists all have psychological issues, therefore it's all bs. 

 

People want to belive in conspiracies because it fits their narrative and view on their life and their world. It mirrors their inner self.

[frank83628]

5 hours ago, proton said:

 

Training on Earth

In a studio... just like the landing itself

[OneMoreFarang]

 

 

 

 

[frank83628]

NASA or us gov doesn't exaclty help dispel the conspiracies given that all the technology used to get there has apparently  been lost or deleted.

Still  today with the green screen videos alegedly from the ISS where you can clearly see harness unnatural movements , not to mention the chick with rock solid hair standing up!!. Its like they're not even trying anymore....

The only thing that makes me think its legit is the fact no other country has called them out on it being fake. And given Americas arrogance toward the world, governments like Russia, China would itching to expose them.

[frank83628]

20 minutes ago, Hummin said:

People want to belive in conspiracies because it fits their narrative and view on their life and their world. It mirrors their inner self.

How many conspiraces have turned out to be true?

[Hummin]

Just now, frank83628 said:

How many conspiraces have turned out to be true?

Watergate, Meta surveillance, X surveillance, 

[frank83628]

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Watergate, Meta surveillance, X surveillance, 

NSA surveillance, COVID. WT7

[tomazbodner]

On 1/25/2025 at 5:29 PM, CharlieH said:

What do you think—did we land on the Moon, or is there more to the story? 

Given the flags are still there, I would say human race did land on the moon. Just on the first mission, they have put it too close to the lander, which caused the engine to blow it away - lesson was learned and subsequent missions placed the flags further away. Which are still visible.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19050795

[Hummin]

2 hours ago, frank83628 said:

NSA surveillance, COVID. WT7

Covid I do kot know, and it is what you feel and want to be true.

 

In my opinion, covid have been used politically and still being used politically to gain more power by the Republicans. 

 

Mostly uneducated who first jumps to conclusions while other ls gain views and in their little world power, be it youtubers or just discussing the matter online. 

 

If there was a leak from a lab, we need to see the proofs, 

 

I think most people understand, we collectively have to deal with pandemics same way as we delt with covid more or less, and hopefully we learned something from it. 

 

WT7, no idea, I'm not a demolition guy or architect 

[Hummin]

The most important in this life

 

 

And 

 

[save the frogs]

7 hours ago, Hummin said:

People want to belive in conspiracies because it fits their narrative and view on their life and their world. It mirrors their inner self.

the opposite is also true.

some people's inner self is to trust anyone and everyone.

here's dubya making fun of people who believed the weapons of mass destruction nonsense.

 

 

[save the frogs]

4 hours ago, Hummin said:

And 

and wine is overpriced bs. 

 

[Hummin]

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

and wine is overpriced bs. 

 

How would you know

[save the frogs]

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

How would you know

because anything with the word chateux in it is a scam.

it's subliminal mind control to give people the illusion that they're royalty. 

 

[Hummin]

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

because anything with the word chateux in it is a scam.

it's subliminal mind control to give people the illusion that they're royalty. 

 

You should seek help!

[rattlesnake]

4 hours ago, Hummin said:

The most important in this life

 

 

And 

 

 

That Bordeaux looks excellent.

[DualSportBiker]

Having a more accurate tape measure is not egg on face, it is progress. And, just BTW, in a vacuum, all forms of light travel at the same speed. Red and blue shifting is not a function of the speed of the photons, rather the compression of the waveform by the movement of the source, or the medium the light is traveling through.

 

On 1/27/2025 at 1:49 PM, Stiddle Mump said:

The speed of light is not an absolute. Does it npot depend on whether it is blue or red? But, I'm not referring to that.

 

What I'm saying; is that the scientific measurement of it has  changed. As with most fundamental belief changes; not shouted out too loudly from the mountin top. Egg on face; and all that. Because as we know, back in the 70s the ice age commeth. Polar bears will be fighting the locals for a chip buttie in Newcastle.

 

''The science is settled.''

 

The only thing that has changed regarding the speed of light is our ability to measure it more and more accurately. Even if the dubious source you quote were correct, 20km/h is a 0.00667% change. Do you want to be taken seriously by suggesting that it would be significant?

 

On 1/27/2025 at 6:22 PM, Red Phoenix said:

 

> https://steemit.com/physics/@abhijitraorane/speed-of-light-is-not-constant-it-is-constant-by-definition

[gamb00ler]

On 1/27/2025 at 4:54 PM, Gobbler said:

 

Manhattan Project.  Not leaked.

Apples and oranges....

Workers on the Manhattan Project were extremely motivated by the importance of keeping their work secret because of terrible national security consequences for USA if leaks occured.

 

There weren't such serious national security consequences if the "truth" about faked moon landings leaked.

[richard_smith237]

10 hours ago, frank83628 said:

NASA or us gov doesn't exaclty help dispel the conspiracies given that all the technology used to get there has apparently  been lost or deleted.

Still  today with the green screen videos alegedly from the ISS where you can clearly see harness unnatural movements , not to mention the chick with rock solid hair standing up!!. Its like they're not even trying anymore....

The only thing that makes me think its legit is the fact no other country has called them out on it being fake. And given Americas arrogance toward the world, governments like Russia, China would itching to expose them.

 

If they are that clear - Show them !!! 

[pete43]

On 1/25/2025 at 5:39 PM, BritManToo said:

No dust on the landers pads.

Grid crosses all over the place.

Shadows in assorted directions.

Cameras with no viewfinders taking perfectly framed shots.

Unsealed cameras working in vacuum.

 

To name just a few more problems.

All debunked thoroughly. Try again!