Out of Pod Experience

We all know Elvis is not dead. He just went home. They even admitted it in MiB !

P.S. I love it when the original poster goes all of a sudden silent in his thread as soon as he's basically proven wrong beyond any REASONABLE doubt, but keeps being active in other threads.

It's not that people want ot believe it's fake. It's just that a lot of little things abut the whole Apollo program dont add up.

Have you tried using all the little things as opposed to some cherry-picked ones only ?
And have you tried using the plus sign for a change ?

Quoting from the sites:

"On the moon, there is only one light source, the sun." Learn what parallax is.

"This is a famous picture labeled "Man on the Moon" Know what moonlight is? Light from the sun, reflected to earth. It's bright enough to see by on earth. I'm thinking that near-white moon dust might reflect enough sunlight to provide what idiots would misinterpret as secondary light sources. Also, given how washed-out the background is, this is obviously a longer exposure.

"you will notice there are no stars in the sky." When the sun is shining, you don't see stars? NEWS AT 11! Also, learn how camera film works: if they'd exposed the shot long enough to catch the dimly-lit stars, the who sun-lit foreground while just be white.

" If the camera was attached to Conrad's chest, the top of Bean's helmet L should not be in this picture." I never knew the moon was perfectly flat, that people couldn't lean back, or that the camera couldn't possibly be at a slight angle from perfectly level. OBVIOUSLY it's a fake.

"Well, the fact is, you need a mixture of a compound, and water, to make such defined lines." No, this is not a fact at all. There are plenty of terrestrial materials which can display these properties without water.

"you can see the Lunar Rover is in front of the cross hairs. " So how do you think they got that cross hair in the picture? It's hanging in the middle of the studio? Wouldn't it make more sense that they used the camera exactly as described, even if they did it on a set? This goes back to exposure: the white of the rover washed out the thin black line of the marker. The author clearly fails to grasp how photography works.

"An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260° F to 280° F, too much for film to survive. At those temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball." Normal film in normal cameras, yes.

"About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt. If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead."

I'm just going to quote wikipedia:



"There are millions of micro-meteors traveling at speeds up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces." Because all those deep space probes we've sent out for YEARS have been torn to pieces. NEXT!

"If you look at the pictures/video of people on the moon, you will never see more than 3 stars." Not this again.

"When the LEM set down on the Lunar surface, it gave out 3000 lb. worth of thrust. This would have created a massive hole underneath the Lunar Module, but in pictures of the Lunar Module, the ground underneath is untouched. " Lack of atmosphere means it doesn't behave the same way there as it does here. This is repeatable in a lab environment, all you need is air pressure and a vacuum chamber.

No, this is the same drivel that was passed around in bad newsletters and on BBSs in the 80s and early 90s. I learned about the moon landing conspiracies when I was in middle school in 1993...before the internet was called the internet.

Clearly you know less about your own conspiracy theories than you think.

I also want to point out that 'micro' in astronomical terms is a grand of sand. The distance between any of our inner-system planets planets is several million miles.

Put a million grains of sand in a million-mile-long olympic swimming pool and see how likely it is that a swimmer will run into a particular grain.

I'm all about people questioning assumed truth, as it helps people maintain the truth, but as we've easily learned thus far in this thread most conspiracy theorists are very poorly educated people with absolutely no grasp on the depth of which they choose to criticize. One gross misconception + psuedoscience = tin foil hat.

Getting a few people, alive, all the way to the Moon and back again is certainly a monumental feat for our species considering our technological and political limitations. Such an extraordinarily complicated thing is just asking for people become overloaded and attempt to snuff out what they cannot understand. There are motives that could make sense in regards to the Moon missions being faked, most prominent of that would be the USA's drive to 'beat' the Russians in the space race. Yet proof of a hoax has yet to be brought to light.

Op seems one of those people who could be convinced that they are gay for a night.

Guys you do know that asteroid belts are not like the ones in Star Wars but have like 100km or more space between eachother?

And for the love of god don't use Wikipedia as a source. Especially with conspiracy theories like this one. Read real literature or your information is just as accurate as the bible or Harry Potter for what I care.

And why the hell are we talking about the moon landing? DIDN"T YOU HEAR ALIENS ATTACKED THE TWINTOWERS???

I still think the best evidence is that if the signals from the broadcast were coming from anywhere but the moon they would have been called on it like that. /snaps fingers

There was another Superpower that was highly invested in proving this was a hoax. They had the equipment and intelligence network to do it too if it was.