Moon hoax enthusiasts point out different facts and come from different camps. I will list their arguments, I have no side, I am open minded, most of the arguments can be refuted, I am just trying to answer your question :) The most important movie on this subject is "The Dark Side of the Moon", you can find it on Youtube. Its stance is that Stanley Kurbick filmed the fake moon landing in a studio at president Nixon's request.
Actual arguments are. -Why did the American flag appear to be moving in the wind when in fact on the Moon there is no air -The deaths of 10 people involved in the space program is often referred to as cover up and was presented by a famous FOX documentary on the moon hoax -If we went to the moon 40 years ago, why havent we gone back? -Who filmed the take off of the Apollo spacecraft from the moon?
The camera actually moves to watch the ship fly away so, considering the delay in commands, it would have been difficult to stear manually from Earth -Pictures from the moon landing have misleading shadows, as if filmed under the light of film studio lights, with shadows going in different directions -The flag appears perfectly lit even though its "front" should be on the shadow side -In all the moon landing pictures there are no stars, even though it would appear that on the moon, having almost no atmosphere, the stars would appear brighter -There is no crater below the Apollo after landing or take off, wouldnt the blast of a jet engine that brought the vehicle from Earth to the Moon leave a mark? Also it weighed 17 tons and left less of a mark than the famous footprint? -The Van Allen belts, scientists argue that it is unknown what the radiation of the Van Allen belts would do to humans, but most likely they would kill them immeadiately and no suit or protection known to us even today can protect us against them -Technology, similar to why havent we been back?
Actually someone who used to work for NASA once told a relative of mine that with todays technologies and efforts it would be impossible to get to the moon... The man knows more than some of us I guess. -There was also an issue with the moon photos that some of them had suspicious markings on them -The moon rover apparently left no tracks and also looks fake in some of the video footage, as if fast forwarded after an Earth video shooting, keep in mind the gravity on the moon is much lower I don't know wether the landing was fake, but I like to keep an open mind. Some arguments are interesting but most have been proved wrong.
However more interesting I find the reactions of some of the space astronauts reactions to interviews with conspiracy theorists, they seem to get really worked up every time and act a tad suspicious. Again who knows, would be the greates bs story of all time. And if anyone could do it, it would be the USA.
AGAIN, I am not saying it was fake, but you asked what the arguments are, so that is a list of the arguments I found.
In fact there really isn't much evidence at all. There was a remarkable episode of the show "Mythbusters" that covered this topic. One of the arguments is that the video of the astronauts bouncing around the moon could be faked with wires, but they were able to prove that the pattern a person makes in a low gravity environment is not the same as having some of your weight supported by wires.
They also talk extensively about light sourcing, which the Mythbusters were also able to simulate. In my opinion, it's evident that humanity took a lot of risks and put ourselves on the moon for the sake of just "reaching" the goal. It's remarkable that we haven't done it since, but it seems appropriate.
There just isn't a GOOD reason for humans to go to the moon. It's not exactly rich in resources, and even if it were, there would be no cost effective way of transferring those resources back to the planet below. We did it "because we could", and there has been no real reason to do it since then.
This answer has two parts as I see it, the first part deals with obviously miscrediting and refuting all the claims of the moon hoax theorists. The second part is more about the actual reasons it couldnt have been faked and must have been real. I like a balanced argument and it is great to look at differing views on an argument, so I will try find all the refutings to the claims I gave in my response to the evidence that the moon landing was fake.
-Who filmed the take off? In fact it was controlled by someone in mission control on Earth who took into account the 7 second delay in commands and moved the camera which was positioned on a tripod. -Suspicious shadows: Some of the pictures seem to show that shadows do not run in parallel lines as they would if the sun were the only source of light, however this is in fact just due to the moons surface being uneven and the shadows appearing to run in different directions because they run on slopes.
-No stars visible: Most photographers will be able to point out that with a bright source such as the sun present in the sky the stars will not be visible, neither would they be on earth while taking a picture of a person. This is because the shutter speed is way to low on normal pictures to capture the rather dimm light of stars which are so far away. -Flag in the wind: it only appears to be waving because it was wrinkled, it was held up by a metal piece so that it didn't hang on the post.
-Van Allen Radiation Belts: The astronauts were only exposed to the radiation for a brief period, the flight was designed to avoid the worst areas. Furthermore the spacecraft and the space suit protected the astronauts on the journey there and back. -No crater under spacecraft in photos: in fact there are images which show disturbances on the moonâ€™s surface due to the spacecraft, however they were not severe due to the moons robust surface and the gravity, which is 1/6 that of the Earth.
-Film tape would have been destroyed: even though the harsh environment of the moon with temperatures ranging from 260 F to minus 250 F posed a problem to the tape it was avoided because they filmed when the sun was not too high and the films were stored in special air tight protective magazines. -Dark objects illuminated: even though the sun is the only source of light on the moon objects on the shady side can still appear illuminated because light reflects and scatters off the moons surface. There are many more refuting arguments about particular images concerning the angles and backgrounds, however quite frankly I donâ€™t even grasp all of it and secondly it is too complex to summarize all of the little arguments.
If you are interested check my sources which in part go through picture by picture. Now to the general reasons why the moon landing must have been real. The argument goes that the moon landing was too large to fake and too many people had to be involved in order for the hoax to work.
Even though NASA raised about 30 billion for the project it would have still been incredibly difficult to pay off people, eventually something would have leaked. Another argument that supports the moon landings to be real is that it was too risky to fake. The USA could not have been caught cheating in the space race, if the Russians would have gotten wind of it the USA would have been the joke of the planet.
Too much was at stake as to fake the landings. Like I said before I have no real side, I enjoy looking at both sides arguments and keeping an open mind, however I think both sides lack evidence in some areas. But, aslong as we do not have 100% proof that it was fake we have to accept that the USA put the first man on the moon.
I hope I answered the question to similar satisfaction as yesterday, you have no idea what I went through with this question, once my laptops battery ran out and once I hit â€œbackâ€ by accident and had to start over, so I wrote this on Word haha just to keep up with my reputation of AOTD nomination.
Mythbusters did a fairly good job tackling some of the most common skepticisms around the moon landing. Below are a couple of videos and links to the overview of the episode. All of this said, I have to say I'm still a bit of a skeptic - it just seems to me that with all the technological advancement and the knowledge of each of the Apollo missions we should be able to get back to the moon without it costing so much money - it cost $20-25 Billion in the 1960's (Note: this is about $115-145 Billion in today's money - history.nasa.gov/SP-4009/keyev4.htm) and was estimated at $104 Billion in 2004 (msnbc.msn.com/id/9399379/).
That is, if we actually went in the first place... Landing Photo 1: youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0 Landing Photo 2: youtube.com/watch?v=MtWMz51eL0Y Flag Waving: youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8&feature=... mythbustersresults.com/mythbusters-tackl....
The "evidence" that the moon landings were faked is easily refuted. Here are some of the main points: 1. There are no stars in any of the pictures, even though the sky appears black.
The stars are there; they're just too faint to be seen. The cameras were set to properly record the astronauts and the moon in full daylight. If you take a camera on Earth and set it to take pictures in daylight, pictures of the night sky using the same settings will be as starless as the Apollo photos.2.
Shadowed objects are visible. Without air, shadows on the moon should be pitch black. There might not be air on the moon to scatter light, but the moon's surface itself reflects enough light to illuminate the shadows.3.
Scenes shot from different locations have identical backgrounds. Objects on the moon may be more distant than they appear. The lack of air means that distant objects will appear as clear and sharp as nearby objects.
What appears to be a hill a few hundred yards away might really be a mountain several miles away, and a slight change in camera position can change the foreground completely without any significant change in the background perspective.4. The astronauts appear to be moving in slow motion. Lunar gravity is only 1/6 as strong as Earth's.
The astronauts found that a bouncing "kangaroo hop" type of gait was the most efficient way to get around, and the low gravity means that they bounce more slowly than on Earth. 5. The astronauts' cameras were equipped with crosshairs to more accurately measure the size of objects in the photos.
However, some of the objects photographed appear to be *in front* of the crosshairs. In any photograph, bright objects tend to "bleed" into adjacent dark areas. The dark crosshairs are so narrow that the bleed effect covers them completely.6.
There is no blast crater under the lander. The rocket on the lunar lander was producing about 3000 pounds of thrust during the final descent. The engine nozzle was 54 inches in diameter, so that thrust was spread over about 2300 square inches, giving a thrust pressure of only about 1.3 pounds per square inch.
This is enough to blow away some surface dust but nowhere near enough to gouge holes in solid rock. 7. The shadows point in different directions, indicating multiple light sources.
First, perspective causes parallel lines to appear to converge in the distance. Second, the moon's surface is not perfectly flat, so shadows may appear to change direction as the slope of the surface changes with respect to the sun. Third, if there were multiple light sources, every object would cast multiple shadows.8.
The lunar lander was unstable, and movement of the astronauts in the cabin would cause the lander to tip out of control. The lander was equipped with sensors to detect any change in attitude, and the rocket nozzle was steerable to compensate for any such changes 9. The flag was waving, which is impossible in a vacuum.
The flag had a wire threaded through the top to keep it extended (otherwise, it would have collapsed onto the flagpole just like flags do on Earth if there is no wind). The astronauts had to wiggle the pole back and forth to get it to dig into the lunar surface, and the attached flag wiggled as well.10. Passing through the Van Allen belts on the way to the moon would have exposed the astronauts to lethal doses of radiation.
The Apollo spacecraft passed through the Van Allen belts in an hour or so, and the spacecraft's hull blocked most of the radiation in any event. Here are the actual mean radiation doses received by the various Apollo crews:
On Earth, dust is spread mainly by air currents. On the moon, there is no air, and only the dust that is directly affected by the rocket exhaust itself will be blown away. Once the dust moves out of the exhaust, it falls back to the surface, and most of the dust that was blown out from under the lander ended up surrounding the lander, adding to the dust already there.12.In the videotapes of the astronauts taking off from the moon, the ascent stage of the lunar module shows no visible flame or exhaust.
The fuel used in the lunar module (a mixture of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide) does not produce a visible flame. Even on Earth, the flames from hydrogen and alcohol are nearly invisible; and again, if the camera was set to take pictures of the bright lunar surface, any flames would be too faint to see.In addition to these refutations, there is positive evidence that astronauts did land on the moon: --Hundreds of pounds of moon rocks have been brought back to Earth. --Retroreflectors placed by the astronauts are still functional today.
--The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has taken pictures of the Apollo landing sites, revealing the landers, astronaut footprint trails, equipment packages, etc.
Brian san I'm so glad that you brought up this question in response to my own. I was actually really surprised by the amount of debate over the issue. As previously mentioned by @mrcal Mythbusters did an outstanding job with these myths.
The one that I feel is concrete proof is the following: - The main point is that when we landed on the moon retroreflectors (devices that reflect light back towards the source no matter what angle) were placed on the moon. This means that a powerful laser can be aimed at these retroreflectors and we can receive feedback and proof that these devices are on the surface of the moon.
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.