BrainWithAGun: I do not beleive that we have ever been to the moon. there is just too much evidence. Photo inconsistencies, mostly. Too much radiation to survive.
Most of this evidence has been shown to be complete rubbish. The theory came first, then the conspiracy theorists simply made these allegations to make their case seem at least slightly plausible to ignorant people. A lot of the hoax “evidence” itself is filled with inconsistencies, and even, in some cases, outright fabrications.
Dr Lou Natic: There IS a [controversy] over whether or not the film and photos of the moon landing are authentic
I’m afraid that this brand of hoax “theory”, promulgated by Percy and Bennett of
Aulis publishing, is similarly regarded to be complete nonsense.
There is no credible evidence for any brand of the hoax theory. If you know any different, provide the evidence.
Bemorphy: Check the paintings that Buzz did of the moon
I think you’re referring to the paintings by Apollo 12 LMP Alan Bean.
The rest of your post is piled with conjecture upon conjecture and you still want us to ponder the implications of your scenario. Find a shred of credible evidence that the moon landings were faked, or the “record” was, first.
Then we can discuss
why it might have been faked.
Rexagan: evidently, one of the items left behind on the moon is a mirror
The Lunar Ranging Retro-Reflectors (LRRRs) were indeed deployed by Apollo astronauts. However, I believe the Russians also managed to deploy their own similar devices with unmanned spacecraft. So the moon hoaxers claim, quite rightly, that it was possible to deploy them without Apollo astronauts.
Gnasher: Money. Lots of it.
Where was the money supposed to come from? Lots of Apollo equipment undoubtedly still exists. Real spacecraft would have had to have been made and flown towards the moon – if you swallow the conspiracy theorists’ argument. Literally hundreds of thousands of employees’ salaries would have had to have been paid as well as fees paid to contractors. After all of this expenditure, how would they been able to actually have any money remaining, enough to justify the risk and effort of faking the moon landings?
Rambo:As for the radiation, if the suits really could block out that high level of radiation I'd like to see someone wear one into 3 mile Island.
What high level of radiation are you alluding to that the suits were meant to block out? You’re just mimicking the words of “self-taught physicist”— and professional conspiracy theorist — Ralph Rene.
Rambo:Most of the tests before the moon landing had failed, so even if the US did land on the moon
Most of what tests failed? The risks were high, but acceptable.
The crosshairs being behind an object are due to emulsion bleed. There’s some really good examples of it on
this page. Just scroll down until you see the examples. Like
this one.
Patter: The first reason obviously is money the next being moral of beating the Russians at their own game.
I don’t see how any of these reasons are obvious reasons for hoaxing the moon landings. As I explained above, the money has to somewhere. Real spacecraft have to be made to show people. Employees and contractors have to be paid. And as far as beating the Russians “at their own game”, then I’m sure that this would best be satisfied by a real moon landing, don’t you think?
Wet1: Trouble with the tv documentaries is that they are not always what they seem.
The Fox documentary frequently bent the truth, and in some cases, made outright fabrications.
Doubters ought to read the
Clavius website. It is a very good website discussing and refuting nearly all moon hoax claims.
