5 Most Believed Moon Landing Conspiracies! (Video)

[Top5s]

I think most of you will enjoy this! what are your thoughts on each conspiracy?

Thanks!

[darren r]

I think most of you will enjoy this! what are your thoughts on each conspiracy?

Thanks!

Well, I learned that there are millions of conspiracy believers, that the Moon has almost zero gravity and Photoshop existed in the early Seventies.

[beedarko]

So the point of emphasis on your #2 example is to show that Neil Armstrong is a liar.

Hmmm....

[Allan F]

1: Flag moving done and done again. It does not move unless the astronauts interact with it. And it isn't gravity that slows it down, but internal friction in the material.
2: Near zero gravity? No - 1/6th of Earth. That's not near zero. Again - the idea that the footprints require moisture to be crisp and clear is an old idea which does not account for the special environment on the moon. The dust is meteorite debris and formed by impacts of micro-meteroites which give up their energy as heat - melting and reforming as glass with many sharp edges. They interlock and keep the imprint that way.
3: NO STARS? Oh please. The starlight is so weak compared to the sunlit landscape that the cameras - adjusted for sunlight - could not bridge the gap. There is approximately a 1:1.000.000 difference. No, the light from the surface is not "washing out the stars" but the stars are simply too weak to register.
4: Neil Armstrong was a private man, not comfortable with the spotlight. He gave lots of interviews but NONE TO CONSPIRACISTS. Look around on youtube, and you'll find them. Hint: "Neil Armstrong interview" in the search box will help. And his unknown brother supplying an un-documented opinion is not proof of anything.
5: The crosshairs are PERFECTLY VISIBLE in the original - high-quality photos. Only low-quality prints have this issue.

[JayUtah]

what are your thoughts on each conspiracy?

My thoughts on each conspiracy is that even if you had made this clip 10 years ago, the claims would all have been long debunked.  You obviously did almost no research before advancing these claims.  How can the human race hope to progress as long as clueless people keep bringing up the same hogwash year after year despite the readily-available facts?

[LunarOrbit]

I think most of you will enjoy this! what are your thoughts on each conspiracy?

Thanks!

Like the others have said, those 5 theories have all been debunked. Good video though, I appreciate that you provided both sides of each claim. I think most reasonable people will end up believing the landings really happened after watching it.

[onebigmonkey]

The words 'NASA says' really grind my gears.

Apparently NASA is the only authority on anything space related, no matter how tenuous the link, and comprises unanimous and opinion between the many scientists and experts who work in its various departments.

The example here is in the context of seeing stars in Apollo images, where the words "NASA says" can be replaced with "Anyone who knows even the tiniest bit about photography'.

[Bryanpoprobson]

I think most of you will enjoy this! what are your thoughts on each conspiracy?

Thanks!

Yawn, thanks been having trouble sleeping lately.

[smartcooky]

The clincher for me is that those of us who know that Apollo really took place, know that it is superbly documented in the intricate scientific and technical details of the Manned Space Flight procedures, manuals and design schematics, involving hundreds if not thousands of contractors, and hundreds of thousands of people, starting with the Mercury program, through Gemini to Apollo, and beyond into the STS programme. Manned Space Flight has to be one of the most extensively documented programs in the history of humanity. There is only one story throughout, consistent within itself, verifiable at every step, and able with withstand the most minute scrutiny.

The conspiracy theories on the other hand, are many and various, often conflicting with each other, are not verifiable, and they simply don't stand up to any kind of scrutiny. Not one conspiracy theorist has so far been able to document a candidate scheme, a plan down to the fine detail required, for exactly how the Apollo moon landings were supposed to have been faked. Plenty of innuendo and unproven theories... but NO FACTS!

[nomuse]

How is this in any way "5 most believed moon landing conspiracies?"

I mean, the expected semantic meaning is that there are a number of different conspiracy beliefs centering around the Apollo landings (or, more broadly, around the general concept of landing on the Moon), and the video wishes to list the five which are most accepted, popular, or some other similar ranking.

If I was coming up with an ad-hoc list based on no systematic research, at least two wouldn't even be Apollo-related. "Nazi Flying Saucers on the Moon" would be one, and "Secret (modern) Government Moon Base" would be another.

To pad out the five, one might (depending on who you included in your survey and when you took it, or what other method of determining what you meant by "most believed") be the "Apollo 20" flight as well.

In no possible way does any possible parsing that agrees with customary English usage translate "5 most believed moon landing conspiracies" (particularly, note the plural!) into "the top five stupid reasons people have given for thinking the Apollo Program faked it."

It even more so does not stretch to "What I believe are the top 5 bits of evidence supporting the conclusion that they faked it."

I wouldn't bother to watch the video. If he can't express his meaning in a SINGLE SENTENCE, there's no hope he would create anything worth deciphering in a video.

[nomuse]

(Heck, I'd even settle for "Five complete but different and internally consistent narratives for a faked landing" (as opposed to the Blind Texan Sharpshooter we have today, which is hoax believers pointing to a barn full of holes and assuming it is possible to draw a circle around some significant majority of them).

[JayUtah]

Five Most Often Recycled Claims of Hoax Believers

[beedarko]

This strikes me as the video equivalent of the tired old "I'm just asking questions" approach.

The OP is quick to adopt the claim of dishonesty by Neil Armstrong, citing some contextually ambiguous quote by a family member as his only proof, yet in another part of the video states, "there is no way of knowing for sure what to believe", referring to the authenticity of the boot prints and the missions in general.  Does this unequal weighting of evidence sound familiar?

With due respect to our esteemed webmaster's opinion, I don't think the video is very good at all.  The creator's ideological biases bleed through the facade of neutrality he's tried to construct.  It's clear that it was poorly researched, with slipshod claims in places, and downright falsehoods in others.  Technically, the narration is somewhat amateurish and "rushed", with substandard audio quality.  Visually it's essentially a bland collection of stills, with an occasional low quality clip inserted - most likely leeched from other YT videos or some of the low-res examples on Nasa.gov.

Yeah... color me unimpressed.

[Echnaton]

It strikes me as a wannabe filmmaker trying to drive traffic to his site. 

[LunarOrbit]

I think maybe some of you interpreted the video differently than I did. Yes, he does seem to lean a little more to the HB side, but I give him credit for at least presenting the counter arguments for each hoax claim (has JW ever done that?), and I don't think he ever actually takes a side one way or the other. You can't say that about most HBs on YouTube.

He strikes me as a young kid with an interest in making videos... I'm not going to discourage that, even if I don't agree with his stance on a particular topic. And given his age (or at least what I assume to be his age) I won't give him a hard time for trotting out old hoax claims that the rest of us have probably known about since before he was born.

I'm sure we could all write a better history paper now than we could have when we were in high school, so I guess I just don't think it's fair to be so hard on him for not having a certain level of skill or knowledge about a subject that is new to him.