Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

[Debra]

According to this guy they did something like that. He was working as a stage manager and set up a moon set in case the transmission failed.

He sounds very sane, doesn’t he?
I strongly feel that Both scenarios happened, and have been used to manipulate and confuse people, divide and isolate.

Understanding the historical context behind Nixons drive for the U.s. to accomplish and Win the “space race” as well as being so competitive and paranoid as shown in the movie, says a lot about the society and culture of the era, in my opinion.
I say give the movie a go, it’s very well done, and offers food for thought on several levels.
Woody Harrelson playing a very interesting character is a bonus!

 

[nature]

Thank you, Jones and axj for your answers.

I am still uncertain as to the veracity of the official elements provided to the public. Given the context of the time (balance of power between 2 major opposing countries, wish for domination of the USA over the whole world), the hypothesis of the hoax to anchor this domination holds good.
I think the astronauts did go to the moon but not by rocket. Assuming that a 150-year-old hidden technology was secretly given, today it would have been officially provided, or else another trip with humans on board would probably have been made. There are asplashdown videos but it's not enough.
On the other hand, wormholes do exist, it is not hidden information, it is accepted in conventional science. So my thought is that they went there through wormholes, not necessarily on the surface, but in one of the secret bases, in agreement with the owners of these bases.

 

[Deneb]

About 5.5 degrees, the earth was about 19% illuminated, a crescent. Moon was lit by the sun and has a far lower albedo than the earth.

To make 2 fairly neatly defined shadow outlines 73 meters away? That's how long the shadow is.

Or they're holes or missing matt black paint on the backdrop. Most likely dust or flaws in the emulsion caused by sloppy lab work which are legion in the archive.
NASA never explains the two shadow anomaly, that's left to the fanboys. They say it's because the photos where taken through the double paned window of the LM but only affects the LM shadow for some reason, doesn't duplicate anything else except for a couple of horizons: a crater shadow here and there. It has at least once made moon rocks duplicate and dance.
You can even see the shadows change position in real time in this clip from Apollo 11.
So which outline is the shadow, inner or outer?

Which part of earth was lit and which part of it is on the photo? Maybe try to draw it
Also what is the source of those (About 5.5 degrees, the earth was about 19% illuminated) revelations?

 

[Brewer]

Which part of earth was lit and which part of it is on the photo? Maybe try to draw it
Also what is the source of those (About 5.5 degrees, the earth was about 19% illuminated) revelations?

Earth phases from the moon are the exact opposite of what we see of the moon from earth. On the landing day, Nov 19 1969 the moon was waxing gibbous so the earth was a crescent.

I don't it's exact position in the lunar sky at the time but it generally appears to the observer to hang there thanks to one side always facing the earth. If earthshine made that well defined second shadow it would have to pretty low on horizon, close to the sun and bright, very bright. Looking at A12's position on the moon, it was high in the lunar sky and a crescent.

Apollo sun angles, moves half degree every hour on the moon. Image in question was snapped sometime between landing and 1st EVA.
So, what causes that second shadow and which shadow line is the real one; inner, outer, or both?

 

[Brewer]

He sounds very sane, doesn’t he?
I strongly feel that Both scenarios happened, and have been used to manipulate and confuse people, divide and isolate.
Understanding the historical context behind Nixons drive for the U.s. to accomplish and Win the “space race” as well as being so competitive and paranoid as shown in the movie, says a lot about the society and culture of the era, in my opinion.
I say give the movie a go, it’s very well done, and offers food for thought on several levels.
Woody Harrelson playing a very interesting character is a bonus!

He does sound sane, I've been looking for the images of him on the set but so far no joy. The culture of the time is worth delving into, especially NASA's culture at the time. It's portrayed as something generally positive but I think now it was anything but. I've been reading the rather damning report by Thomas Baron about the workplace culture at the time (as above, so below?). He died at a railway crossing a week after testifying to congress. NASA calls his death 'ironic' implying that he wasn't that up to speed in matters regarding safety.

Ironically, Baron and all his family died in a car-train crash only a week after this exposure to congressional questioning

He was also working on a 500 page report at the time, it vanished.
I'll check that movie out, see if my autistic, Apollo obsessive analysis picks up any clues, or maybe I'll be too distracted by Scarlett!

 

[axj]

The culture of the time is worth delving into, especially NASA's culture at the time. It's portrayed as something generally positive but I think now it was anything but.

Check out Richard Hoagland's book "Dark Mission" on that topic, he does quite a deep dive into what really went on at NASA.

 

[nicklebleu]

I’m still of the opinion that it might be a mix of faking stuff to some extent (pictures/videos etc.) basically for making it a much more appealing show/event with lots of propaganda value for America, but ALSO, that real landings happened including those mentioned astronauts walking on the moon.

That would also explain why both camps keep thinking they must be right and why the “all faked from start to finish“ group will probably never be convinced that there was quite some real stuff going on too which includes the most important parts.

That’s pretty much the conclusion I came to myself: I think they went to the Moon, but used ‘hidden’ tech to pull it off. The visible tech at that time itself would probably not have been sufficient. It was also basically untested, yet it worked like a charm many times in a row. That is unlikely to be the case with such complex tech (like landing on the Moon or taking off from the lunar surface). Just the computing power required to pull it off would likely be hugely insufficient. See the specs of the onboard Apollo computer, which was responsible for guidance, navigation and control of the spacecraft:

Look at the amount of RAM/ ROM …

Anyway, just my two cents …