Moonlanding

cheater

The moonlanding conspiracy theory, anyone have any opinions?

meglome

What's your opinion?

For me I don't think there's any great conspiracy here. If you're asking me might NASA have touched up or enhanced the photo's or videos in places then I think that's plausible, simply to make them look better. But I've yet to have anyone explain the dust falling in the videos, which can only happen in a vacuum.

oscarBravo

I can't remember where I saw it, but I've seen a pretty detailed explanation of why it would have cost more to fake the landings convincingly than to actually carry them out.

cheater

I've always been fairly fond of this conspiracy theory, it seems the most plausible out of a number of conspiracy theories, to actually have the element of truth behind it. Just as there has been no answers to the dust falling there also hasn't been any answers to the best of my knowledge to a number of questions suggesting, it was infact staged by the americans..

I'm not saying whole heartedly that I am 100% certain that it was a hoax by the americans but the reasons which lead me to believe it could be would be:

1.The Americans wanting to be the superior super power in the world and out do the Russians by claiming they landed on the moon

2.The Russians abolishing plans to send a shuttle into space citing, the danger/cost etc. of the proposed journey. If the Americans had already completed a succesful voyage would that not have eased some of the Russians worries?

And then after that there are the various questions regarding.. The flag blowing, a number of astronauts mysteriously dying in the weeks leading up to the launch, photographs with astronauts and space buggys supposedly being superimposed onto the moons landscape, which incidentally appears to be identical in a number of photographs etc. etc.

As I said before I'm not saying I am of the belief that it was a conspiracy just looking for peoples opinions and input on it, feel free to agree or disagree.

Skeptic_Desu

cheater wrote: »

1.The Americans wanting to be the superior super power in the world and out do the Russians by claiming they landed on the moon

2.The Russians abolishing plans to send a shuttle into space citing, the danger/cost etc. of the proposed journey. If the Americans had already completed a succesful voyage would that not have eased some of the Russians worries?

So how come the Russians never cried foul?
Surely if they wanted they would show how the moon landing was faked years ago.
And what exactly stopped them from trying it themselves?

cheater wrote: »

And then after that there are the various questions regarding.. The flag blowing, a number of astronauts mysteriously dying in the weeks leading up to the launch, photographs with astronauts and space buggys supposedly being superimposed onto the moons landscape, which incidentally appears to be identical in a number of photographs etc. etc.

These are really common accusations from haox believers and have been answer many many times, just no one seem to bother to look.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html


Lucky the Mythbusters are here to debunk such nonsense!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JbaM1xNIis

cheater

Very good! Being honest I remember seeing that show referred to in one of the links posted and I was bored at work and decided to see what people thought of it, like all conspiracy theories that website seems to have quashed all possibility of it being a hoax.

Are there any conspiracy theories that you feel might have some substance behind them?

Skeptic_Desu

cheater wrote: »

Are there any conspiracy theories that you feel might have some substance behind them?

Ha ha...... loaded question!

If you are talking about the usual conspiracy theories like the moon landing 9/11 JFK holocaust denial and stuff, usually the arguments are so glaringly obviously bad even if I'm not too familiar with the evidence for or against.

But I'm sure there are more subtle conspiracies we just don't hear about. Mainly cause they don't involve big important stuff like 9/11 or JFK.

Flamed Diving

I reckon an element of truth lies within every CT. Unfortunately this is buried under a mountain of paranoid lunacy.

oscarBravo

What's the element of truth in the moonlanding conspiracy? (Or the flat-earth conspiracy, for that matter?)

Flamed Diving

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's the element of truth in the moonlanding conspiracy?

Well as someone said above, some of the genuine videos/pictures may have been doctored to make them more... realistic? People may view this as 'evidence' for their CT. See what I mean?

oscarBravo wrote: »

(Or the flat-earth conspiracy, for that matter?)

Thats not a conspiracy, thats just religious superstition gone nuts.

Kernel

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can't remember where I saw it, but I've seen a pretty detailed explanation of why it would have cost more to fake the landings convincingly than to actually carry them out.

Yeah.. that's really helpful.

Anyway, if the moon landings were actually carried out, they were an almost suicidal mission. I'm also skeptical that the moon lander could have worked due to the thin aluminium foil skin and the Van Allen radiation belt should have killed all the astronauts. The space suits had zippers too... which shouldn't work too well on the moon. Starfish prime (the detonation of a nuclear weapon in orbit in 1962 probably didn't help radiation levels up there either....

I think I probably fall further on the side of 'it didn't happen', since I don't think it would have succeeded first time around in 1966. (EDIT: 1969!)

Kernel

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

So how come the Russians never cried foul?
Surely if they wanted they would show how the moon landing was faked years ago.
And what exactly stopped them from trying it themselves?

They carried out a study and concluded that it was much too dangerous. The Van Allen radiation belt being one major obstacle. The soyuz rocket would have had to carry a spacecraft lined with lead, and would have been too heavy a payload. Then there's the problem of trying to get the cosmonauts back.... As to why they never cried foul, I have no idea.

Flamed Diving

Kernel wrote: »

As to why they never cried foul, I have no idea.

This is fairly vital to the CT cause, wouldn't you think?

Kernel

Flamed Diving wrote: »

This is fairly vital to the CT cause, wouldn't you think?

Not necessarily. Perhaps they also believed the television coverage back in 69. I doubt the Soviets were experts in making movies.

Duff

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Already posted this in a thread in Paranormal but just incase anyone missed it or wants a read..

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Not necessarily. Perhaps they also believed the television coverage back in 69.

You don't think the Soviets didn't had the means and technology to follow the source of the transmission signal, and not just pick it off CBS? Jesus.

Weirdly yes the Soviet Space Mission were one among many of the independent observers around the world who tracked the Apollo Missions.

In order for this conspiracy theory to work, every radio telescope in the World has to be in on it. Including the ones in Soviet hands. Radar tracked the module on it's journey and return.

Indeed amateurs even took images of the Apollo missions.

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

Oh hell as the above link shows a pilot on a Pam Am flight routing towards Australia maneuvered his plane to give his passengers a view of the injection burns.

Suggesting that the only evidence of the Moon Landings is what NASA presents, displays a profound ignorance of this subject matter.

I doubt the Soviets were experts in making movies.

Never heard of Sergei Einstein? Andrei Tarkovsky? Nikita Mikhalkov?

Honestly...

Mahatma coat

I remember reading something a few years ago about this,

after operation Paperclip the americans asked Von Braun how long it would take to put someone on the moon, Von Braun responded 'well I'm busy this weekend how does tuesday sound'

the americans were overjoyed at this , until Von Braun pointed out that it would be a one way trip.

so I do not doubt that men have walked about on the moon, whether the videos etc presented by NASA are genuinely what happened tho is something that has generated a lot of debate over the years, these I'm not so sure of, its not implausible to think that they did have something set up just in case the mission failed so that they could save face

THEHEDGEHOG

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can't remember where I saw it, but I've seen a pretty detailed explanation of why it would have cost more to fake the landings convincingly than to actually carry them out.

I don't think cost would matter, if something cannot be done, it cannot be done.

So we had, what was it 5 perfect moon landings and returns in the late 1960's. And yet no one has ever gone into space since, why?

Diogenes

THEHEDGEHOG wrote: »

I don't think cost would matter, if something cannot be done, it cannot be done.

Why couldn't it be done?

Imagine the costs of creating the visual effects shots, faking Zero G in the LEM, transmitting the signal from space, and the thousands of people watching, and observing from earth.

You think thats more plausible?

So we had, what was it 5 perfect moon landings and returns in the late 1960's. And yet no one has ever gone into space since, why?

Astronauts go into space regularly.

You mean "why aren't we going back to the moon"? The cost of the moonlandings far exceeded the return in scientific information. The propaganda victory over the Soviets had been won with the Apollo missions.

At the same time the economic slump in the US in the early 70s, made the Moon missions not economical viable, and impractical.

NASA then concentrated it's resources on the space shuttle, a better and more practical orbital space craft that can be reused, it starts to go into use in the late 70s/ early 80s. This allows NASA to combine serious and important scientific research, like building the International Space Station, and the Hubble Telescope (which a incredibly strong case can be made for Hubble as the most important scientific instrument ever created). Alongside work which has important economic and military value, allowing NASA to justify it's operational budget.

But as it happens NASA have announced plans for a new Moon mission. In fact they've gone as far as testing the new booster rocket Orion, which will take astronauts to the moon in 2014, and a colonization of the moon by 2024, part of a long term ambition of a Mars Mission.

Mahatma Coat wrote:

its not implausible to think that they did have something set up just in case the mission failed so that they could save face

Mahatma repeat after me; "Capricorn One was not a documentary." "Capricorn One was not a documentary."
"Capricorn One was not a documentary."

cheater

It would be pretty 'simple' to prove or disprove this CT, because naturally some of the 'spacebuggys' etc. should still be on the moon, that is if they were there in the first place. Would images of the moon where the astronauts landed be able to be gathered in this day and age? If there's no 'bits and pieces' left behind by the astronauts then wouldn't this prove that there was indeed a conspiracy.

Also as THEHEDGEHOG said above, why hasn't there been anymore moonlandings since?

EDIT: Answer to THEHEDHOGS question above

THEHEDGEHOG

Diogenes wrote: »

Mahatma repeat after me; "Capricorn One was not a documentary." "Capricorn One was not a documentary."
"Capricorn One was not a documentary."

High occult tradation, revelation of the method.


And another thing, has anyone her actually looked into the origins of NASA. They were set up as a "military of space". Look into this for yourself, and the have not failed on this front. As the plebs were watching all the "good guy" pieces, they were arming space with weapons and surveillance equiptment. Great scam.

Tar.Aldarion

Recently they staged finding water on mars, muthafukas.
I mean why would they fake it, they had the technology to do it?

Diogenes

THEHEDGEHOG wrote: »

High occult tradation, revelation of the method.

What? Seriously? What?

And another thing, has anyone her actually looked into the origins of NASA. They were set up as a "military of space".

Then I'm sure you'll be able to present this evidence, rather than demand I wander across the internet trying to prove your own spurious claims.

Look into this for yourself, and the have not failed on this front. As the plebs were watching all the "good guy" pieces, they were arming space with weapons and surveillance equiptment. Great scam.

What weapons have NASA put into space?

Yes as I mentioned NASA is charged with the updating and launching the US military and intelligence communities Spy Satellites. They do this alongside commercial and scientific work.

What alternative do you suggest? That the US military set up there own, completely separate, space program, at great expense, rather than make use of NASA?

oscarBravo

Kernel wrote: »

I'm also skeptical that the moon lander could have worked due to the thin aluminium foil skin and the Van Allen radiation belt should have killed all the astronauts.

Basically, this is just an appeal to incredulity, unless you can explain (a) exactly how much radiation there is in the Van Allen belt, (b) exactly how much radiation the astronauts could be exposed to without significant physiological harm, and (c) exactly how much or little the external skin of the spacecraft would have attenuated the radiation.

I think I probably fall further on the side of 'it didn't happen', since I don't think it would have succeeded first time around in 1966. (EDIT: 1969!)

Question for those of you who believe it was faked: do you really think the Russians didn't have the technology to DF the Apollo radio transmissions, and use Doppler techniques to measure the speed of the transmission source?

oscarBravo

cheater wrote: »

Would images of the moon where the astronauts landed be able to be gathered in this day and age?

Pretty difficult to image something a couple of metres across from a distance of nearly 400,000km. Besides, even if such images were produced, what's to stop CTers from calling them fakes?

THEHEDGEHOG

oscarBravo wrote: »

Pretty difficult to image something a couple of metres across from a distance of nearly 400,000km. Besides, even if such images were produced, what's to stop CTers from calling them fakes?

Mate,

If I were to collect a list of official government stances on all topics and then place oscars opinions beside such a list, would I find any differences??????

Flamed Diving

THEHEDGEHOG wrote: »

Mate,

If I were to collect a list of official government stances on all topics and then place oscars opinions beside such a list, would I find any differences??????

Rattled to within an inch of his life.

oscarBravo

THEHEDGEHOG wrote: »

If I were to collect a list of official government stances on all topics and then place oscars opinions beside such a list, would I find any differences??????

Stellar contribution as always, casey.

/in before siteban

THEHEDGEHOG

oscarBravo wrote: »

Stellar contribution as always, casey.

/in before siteban

I heard a good one the other day. Someone described me as "non communitarian" based on the fact that I don't flow with the rabble. She seemed to take exception at my jumping the turnstile at the dart station.

I replied " I am not all in this togeather" at which point she threatened to call the boys in blue.

SkepticOne

cheater wrote: »

It would be pretty 'simple' to prove or disprove this CT, because naturally some of the 'spacebuggys' etc. should still be on the moon, that is if they were there in the first place. Would images of the moon where the astronauts landed be able to be gathered in this day and age? If there's no 'bits and pieces' left behind by the astronauts then wouldn't this prove that there was indeed a conspiracy.

There would also be the large landing stage of the lunar module left behind. One thing left behind was reflectors that bounce laser beams back in the direction they come from. These have been used to determine the distance between the earth and the moon to a high degree of accuracy. I suppose it is possible (though far-fetched) that a secret unmanned mission could have planted them in the position the manned missions were supposed to have been.

I think the best argument against the conspiracy theorists is the russian tracking problem already mentioned on this thread. What is their answer to that?

@lantis

cheater wrote: »

Are there any conspiracy theories that you feel might have some substance behind them?

For people who enjoys good conspiracy theories, I recommend that you watch http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com a 2 hour long "documentary" (in lack of better words) that at least will get your mind going...

Sqaull20

cheater wrote: »

It would be pretty 'simple' to prove or disprove this CT, because naturally some of the 'spacebuggys' etc. should still be on the moon, that is if they were there in the first place. Would images of the moon where the astronauts landed be able to be gathered in this day and age? If there's no 'bits and pieces' left behind by the astronauts then wouldn't this prove that there was indeed a conspiracy.

Also as THEHEDGEHOG said above, why hasn't there been anymore moonlandings since?

EDIT: Answer to THEHEDHOGS question above

The Hubble telescope which isnt inhibited by atmosphere and stuff can see a object as small as 30 metres on the moons surface, but it would be the size of a dot.An object would have to be hundreds even thousands of metres in size for it to make out clearly.To see flags and bits of pieces you need a telescope with atleast 30 metre mirror in diameter ( 3 times larger the currently largest telescopes in the world )

I havent been keeping up with the latest news on the VLST ( Very Large Space Telescope ) which was suppose to replace the Hubble, which was only designed to last 10 years.The VLST which was very interesting idea had a resolution equivalent to seeing a soccer ball 7,500 miles away.

Anyone know the latest on that project?

It would go a long way to killing this theory.

HashSlinging

How come i can see my car parked outside my house on google earth. I'm sure it would be easy to do the same thing with the moon.

Sqaull20

HashSlinging wrote: »

How come i can see my car parked outside my house on google earth. I'm sure it would be easy to do the same thing with the moon.

The moon is 234,000 miles away depending on its orbit.

Google earth telescopes probably orbit a few hundred miles or so above the Earth.

Skeptic_Desu

HashSlinging wrote: »

How come i can see my car parked outside my house on google earth. I'm sure it would be easy to do the same thing with the moon.

Because we don't have thousands of satelites with really good cameras constantly orbiting the Moon.

Also the Apollo astronauts got about the equivalent to one chest x-ray's worth of radiation going through the Van Allen belts.
Not exactly being fried to a crisp.

Also it is interesting to note that all but three of the astronauts who did goes through the belts now have early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.

HashSlinging

Yeah so theres no need to have the worlds biggest telescope to view the thing. Mars has been mapped how come the moon hasnt been. Hiding something.

Sqaull20

HashSlinging wrote: »

Yeah so theres no need to have the worlds biggest telescope to view the thing. Mars has been mapped how come the moon hasnt been. Hiding something.

There are satellite image viewers like Google Mars and Google Moon. So far they're the only other bodies that we've put satellites around.

Images on Google Earth are not from NASA, they are from commercial satellites, anyone that wants to pay the money can have the photos.

NASA World Wind has full coverage of Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars and Jupiter. Mercury has less than half coverage.

If you download some plug-ins you can have access to photos from the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Phobos, Deimos, Jupiter, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Saturn, Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, Iapetus, Uranus, Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon, Neptune, Triton, Pluto and Charon.

The quality is not that good for most of them, but it is interesting.

Nice pics

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/

Diogenes

HashSlinging wrote: »

Yeah so theres no need to have the worlds biggest telescope to view the thing. Mars has been mapped how come the moon hasnt been. Hiding something.

Er the moon has been mapped.

Things line a lunar landing module or a the moon rover are about 5x5 foot, such small details aren't available on lunar or mars maps. Google has both Mars and Lunar maps.

http://www.google.com/moon/

www.google.com/mars/

Maps of Mars, the Moon, and er Earth generally don't include every bump and mound.

This is honestly such a pointlessly tenuous point.

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

You don't think the Soviets didn't had the means and technology to follow the source of the transmission signal, and not just pick it off CBS? Jesus.

Weirdly yes the Soviet Space Mission were one among many of the independent observers around the world who tracked the Apollo Missions.

In order for this conspiracy theory to work, every radio telescope in the World has to be in on it. Including the ones in Soviet hands. Radar tracked the module on it's journey and return.

Indeed amateurs even took images of the Apollo missions.

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

Oh hell as the above link shows a pilot on a Pam Am flight routing towards Australia maneuvered his plane to give his passengers a view of the injection burns.

Suggesting that the only evidence of the Moon Landings is what NASA presents, displays a profound ignorance of this subject matter.

None of this is proof that man landed on the moon. The whole theory is that the apollo missions did achieve earth orbit. The bone of contention is whether man walked on the surface of the moon or not. As I have stated, it is possible, but if they did achieve this, that odds were hugely stacked against them at that time.

Diogenes wrote: »

Never heard of Sergei Einstein? Andrei Tarkovsky? Nikita Mikhalkov?

Honestly...

No, I haven't. Should I have? I'm sure you haven't heard of them before your google searching. :rolleyes:

Skeptic_Desu

Would any hoax believe like to try to explain how a flag can remain absolutely motionless when a man in a large clunky suit hops by it not a foot away?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

bonkey

cheater wrote: »

It would be pretty 'simple' to prove or disprove this CT, because naturally some of the 'spacebuggys' etc. should still be on the moon, that is if they were there in the first place. Would images of the moon where the astronauts landed be able to be gathered in this day and age? If there's no 'bits and pieces' left behind by the astronauts then wouldn't this prove that there was indeed a conspiracy.

No telescope exists today with the capabilities of scanning the moon's surface to the necessary resolution.

The only way you could show pictures of them would be to send a spacecraft to the moon to send back pics.

If someone believes the moon-landing was faked...how, exactly, will they believe pictures beamed back from a space-craft in orbit around the moon???

This leads to the classic question for anyone who believes the landings were faked...

What do you require to prove to you that they weren't?

Kernel

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

Would any hoax believe like to try to explain how a flag can remain absolutely motionless when a man in a large clunky suit hops by it not a foot away?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

Ehhhh extremely easily, if the flag is not made from cloth...........

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

None of this is proof that man landed on the moon. The whole theory is that the apollo missions did achieve earth orbit.

And this is where you show profound ignorance. The Russians sent a unmanned probe to the Moon, as did the Americans.

A theory that manned orbit of the earth could be used to fake a lunar landing ignores the massive evidence including radar, radio telescope, and visual evidence of the apollo missions from various sources. Not to mention it ignores the above mentioned Soviet and American probes to the Moon.

The bone of contention is whether man walked on the surface of the moon or not. As I have stated, it is possible, but if they did achieve this, that odds were hugely stacked against them at that time.

All of the above is the base just ignorant of sheer brilliance of one the greatest human endeavors in the history of mankind.

No, I haven't. Should I have? I'm sure you haven't heard of them before your google searching

I have have had the pleasure of watching Sergi Einstein' "Battle Ship Potemkin" with the score performed by the National Symphony Orchestra in harcourt street back in '99. I have copies of Tarkovsky's (superior) original version of "Solaris" and Mikhalkov seminal "burnt by the sun" in my DVD collection.

Oh bless you're just assuming you own base level of ignorance is the mean? Those of us who know (and I don't claim to have a superior knowledge of either russian cinema or the moon landings) anything don't assume we know everything.

Hey Kernel you are the personification of the term "ignorance is bliss"

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Ehhhh extremely easily, if the flag is not made from cloth...........

Ah yes they made the flag out of steel, and the footage of them lacing up the flag, and letting it unfurl is just, er, em,


er... magic.

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

And this is where you show profound ignorance. The Russians sent a unmanned probe to the Moon, as did the Americans.

A theory that manned orbit of the earth could be used to fake a lunar landing ignores the massive evidence including radar, radio telescope, and visual evidence of the apollo missions from various sources. Not to mention it ignores the above mentioned Soviet and American probes to the Moon.

Did the soviet probes to the moon land where the 69 moon landing supposedly landed? Did it photograph said area? Show me a probe picture of the landing site.

Diogenes wrote: »

All of the above is the base just ignorant of sheer brilliance of one the greatest human endeavors in the history of mankind.

God, you're getting tiresome with the whole 'you're ignorant' thing. :rolleyes:

Diogenes wrote: »

I have have had the pleasure of watching Sergi Einstein' "Battle Ship Potemkin" with the score performed by the National Symphony Orchestra in harcourt street back in '99. I have copies of Tarkovsky's (superior) original version of "Solaris" and Mikhalkov seminal "burnt by the sun" in my DVD collection.

Potemkin? Now that was a conspiracy. Anyway, simple propoganda films aside, I think the US were well ahead of the Soviets in terms of producing movies.

Diogenes wrote: »

Oh bless you're just assuming you own base level of ignorance is the mean? Those of us who know (and I don't claim to have a superior knowledge of either russian cinema or the moon landings) anything don't assume we know everything.

Hey Kernel you are the personification of the term "ignorance is bliss"

You remind me of a child spitting out his dummy. Lol. Yeah, I'm ignorant.. whatever...

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

Ah yes they made the flag out of steel, and the footage of them lacing up the flag, and letting it unfurl is just, er, em,


er... magic.

Steel & magic? No, just not a traditional cloth flag. Pretty ****ing simple really. :rolleyes:

Tar.Aldarion

Kernel wrote: »

Ehhhh extremely easily, if the flag is not made from cloth...........

Kernel wrote: »

Steel & magic? No, just not a traditional cloth flag. Pretty ****ing simple really. :rolleyes:

Lol.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Steel & magic? No, just not a traditional cloth flag. Pretty ****ing simple really. :rolleyes:

Yes thats it, ignore the overall fundamental flaws in your idiotic theory, and focus on one little point.

Hey Kernel, what do you suggest that flag is made of? How can a material go from flexible to inflexible....

Oh and if you think the lunar landings were faked, how do you explain how lunar modules were tracked around the moon via radar? Or how visual evidence of LEM was faked. Or radio transmissions from the Apollo missions were tracked by organisation across the globe.

Go on Kernel gissus a go...

Kernel

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

Lol.

Read it again Tar.

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

Yes thats it, ignore the overall fundamental flaws in your idiotic theory, and focus on one little point.

Hey Kernel, what do you suggest that flag is made of? How can a material go from flexible to inflexible....

Oh and if you think the lunar landings were faked, how do you explain how lunar modules were tracked around the moon via radar? Or how visual evidence of LEM was faked. Or radio transmissions from the Apollo missions were tracked by organisation across the globe.

Go on Kernel gissus a go...

No, you're too rude to engage in further conversation. Grow up.

Kernel

Diogenes, I'm tired of your behaviour in this forum. You come in here for an argument, and simply insult people and call them ignorant if they do not agree with you.

As I have said, I'm not 100% on the moon landings being faked, however I sway more onto the side that they were, because there is evidence that they could not have happened. There is evidence on both sides, but frankly, I find your attitude rude, needlessly hostile and childish.