Conspiracy Theory - Did We Land on the Moon? (2001)

submitted by LarrySwinger2 from (bitchute.com)

all 7 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

"If the lander was so unstable and difficult to fly in the controlled environment of Earth, then how could the LEM land six times flawlessly in the alien environment of the moon?"

Earth's environment is not controlled, there's varying wind, humidity, an actual atmosphere, and a whole lot of extra gravity to punish you for your mistakes. The moon would be a lot more forgiving, but they choose to not only skim over this detail, but actually suggest the opposite.

I think the most educational part of the video is learning to catch people pulling acts of misdirection, and trying to sneak deceptive language past you.

There was another one that stood out, where they're complaining the LEM's rocket didn't make as much noise as the rocket launching from Earth... there being no sound in space might be a factor? Lifting more weight in higher gravity? But no, let's ignore all that.

I had to turn it off, it was annoying me too much. There may well be a conspiracy there, but they're not doing it any justice. If anything I think the whole show is a psy-op designed to discredit conspiracy theories in general.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I agree they discredit themselves a lot. Like the part where they state the guys in shadow should be near invisible. On EARTH you get enough light from the moon to see by. Just imagine on the moon itself, in a small 20 foot ring of shadow... Doesn't the lunar surface reflect light back onto objects? Yeah, no, it would be brighter inside the LEM's shadow than under a single large tree in broad sunlight.

[–]LarrySwinger2[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The lunar surface would only reflect 5% of the light. On earth, light gets scattered through the atmosphere which brightens things, but the moon doesn't have an atmosphere. So they would in fact be nearly invisible. The biggest problem with that image is that the astronaut was as bright as the lunar surface in direct sunlight.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Evidence? I don't buy it. Not one second. That surface reflects WAY MORE than 5%. Hell the moon gives us probably 5% of the light that we get from the sun.

EDIT: If I'm reading this correctly, you are right, the moon reflects very little light, but it's still 12%: https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2015/08/06/why-is-the-moon-so-bright/

Which is probably more than grass itself, discounting the atmosphere.

Also, yes Earth has more AMBIENT lighting, but that's also the point with the moon's reflectivity: the light isn't diffracted around before hitting its surface. It's literally ALL of the sunlight sent its way.

[–]lesdyxic 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There was an interesting video made by space/avionics industry engineer pointing out technical mistakes made during the filming of the LEM descent, specifically the LEM was travelling second-stage forward in low lunar orbit while landing which would be impossible, hence it's necessarily a fraud and sloppy-executed special effects using miniatures.

The design of the Apollo-era LEM is completely implausible as you'll see by comparing it to recent redesigns. We're supposed to believe these early LEMs functioned flawlessly yet the new redesigns are different by orders of magnitude in every respect.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I haven't watched the video (not yet anyway, not sure I will, since I've watched a bunch on the topic already) - but with that said:

I think people did land on the moon. And there, they saw stuff that the governments don't want the rest of us to know about. Maybe alien ships and bases? Maybe aliens themselves? Who the hell knows. As for the pictures looking fake, well... Unless you have gone there yourself, and have snapped pics with the exact same camera, film and lens, who can say for sure?

So yeah they look odd. I think they have some good reasons for that, and probably they were made on Stanley Kubrick's set for uh, was it 2001: A space odyssey or some other. Doesn't mean we didn't go there.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

OK I retract what I wrote. The Van Allen belt is quite something, I knew that already and it was the major doubt inducer I had about it all. But come to think of it, if they had gone for real, and decided to show fake LIVE coverage, they would have to create a whole set beforehand.

So yeah, there was no moon landing.