Did We Really Land on the Moon?

Yes, we landed on the moon, but it’s been almost 45 years since we’ve been back there. Heck, it’s been almost 45 years since we went beyond low Earth orbit.

And when I say “we,” I mean the United States. Only 12 humans have ever walked on the surface of the moon, all of them men, and all of them American. The last two to be there were Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt. That was in December of 1972, of the Apollo 17 mission.

It’s easy to understand why people would be skeptical. Skeptics often point to the motive for wanting to fake the whole thing. The race to the moon was part of the Space Race, during a particularly tense time during the Cold War. The United States and Soviet Union were battling it out to get there first. Skeptics say the United States would have wanted to fake it to show they won the Space Race even if they knew it actually wasn’t possible to go. The Soviet Union had epically failed to ever get even near the moon, so they argue it seems suspicious that the United States able to land men safely on the moon six times in 3 and a half years, yet never do so since. Was this just a publicity stunt, faked in order to strongly discourage the Soviet Union and give the United States a huge advantage in the Cold War while saving its lots of money?

But how could this hoax be pulled off? Skeptics argue the technology did exist to recreate a fake mooning landing in a film studio. Sure, they argue the astronauts really did take off into space, but they likely just orbited the earth for several days before landing back on Earth, while faked footage was distributed to the masses.
But what evidence do that have of the moon landings being faked? For the rest of this video, I will first give you evidence that creates doubt, then give you NASA’s response, and then give you my conclusion.

The first thing that causes doubt is the footage showing the American flag on the moon waving. Skeptics say the flag waving shows the presence of wind, which should be impossible on the moon because it doesn’t have much of an atmosphere and is surrounded by a vacuum. NASA insists that the flag moved due to astronaut Buzz Aldrin twisting the flagpole, causing it to move like that. Apparently the astronauts also accidentally bent the horizontal rods that were supposed to hold the flag outward.
The next evidence that causes doubt is the fact that there were no stars in any of the footage or photographs taken by NASA on the moon. Skeptics say stars were left out because astronomers would have been able to use them to determine whether the photos were taken from the Earth or Moon. NASA, as well as many many others, argue that of course you wouldn’t be able to see the stars because the moon’s surface is so bright. It’s the same reason why you can’t see the stars standing on a bright football field at night. Some astronauts were able to take long exposure UV photographs of bright stars and Venus from the moon, though. But skeptics would probably argue these photos were taken from earth.
What about the fact that there was no blast crater from the lunar module on the moon, especially when scientists before predicted one would be created? Well NASA says those scientists predicted wrong. The fact is, the pressure on the moon was simply too low for the lunar module to create a crater.
Quite a bit of discussion by skeptics revolve around the discussion of lighting and shadows in photographs taken on the moon. Shadows are inconsistent and often intersect in photographs. Skeptics argue that the shadows should be completely black and run parallel to each other. NASA and others argue that shadows are weird on the Moon due to many light sources and lunar dust. Also, the unique terrain of the moon alters how the shadows are seen.
Skeptics also say the photographs on the Moon show the same exact background, despite astronauts saying the photos were taken far away from each other. They argue that the backdrop was basically kept the same, even for different Apollo missions. Take this photograph, for example. Skeptics have combined the two pictures and claim the backgrounds match. Pretty crazy, eh? Well, NASA says that because the Moon is much smaller than Earth, horizons appear closer to the naked eye than they really are, and thus may look identical from different viewpoints.

[CasualHistorian]

We all know that the moon landing was faked. It was filmed by Stanley Kubrick. However, because he was such a perfectionist he demanded that they film on location.

[steve]

One small step for man, one giant argument for mankind.

[AbdullahS]

How do people have some doubts while you clearly filming this episode on the moon

[koolsergio]

6 years later since the video and still havnt gone...back

[DrTWG]

Anybody with even a basic understanding of telescopes can tell you why the HST can't resolve lunar detail. How does it see so far away ? Ask yourself just how big the objects are that it's capturing.

[lane]

It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled .
Mark Twain

[GameDevNerd]

The Soviets in 1969: How the hell did Americans land on the moon?!

American scientists in 2021: How the hell can we land on the moon?!

[SilverSurfer_]

When you tell the truth and your child doubts it, the first thing you never say is "You're a conspiracy theorist". You look forward to explaining and proving every detail to your child. This also applies to the current hoaxes.

[vikmanphotography]

In one of my retouching classes in college, I made it my final project to doctor a moon landing photo, putting the Star Trek ship in the background and replacing all the USA labels and iconography with its Russian equivalent. Fun class.

[Moto-]

Well 6 years have past any updates 😂😁

[marblox]

No time in human history has a super successful technological achievement ended in "Just Stopped".
Except for Apollo.!!!

[cm]

This should be called " I'll give NASA the benefit of the doubt"

[marcdouglasvogt]

Here's a little tip, if you want to try to know things, stop believing everything first. -marc27

[michael_dugan]

The star one in particular makes a ton of sense. If you look at pictures from our spacecrafts that orbit other planets like Jupiter or Saturn you never see stars around the planets in those pictures

[RattusStatus]

In my opinion the most convincing part is the way the dust flies around. There's no turbulence so the whole set would have to be in vacuum! Sounds easier to just film on site at this point

[michaelmurratti]

If we really landed on the Moon in 1969..There would be a McDonalds and a Walmart by now!

[TheMauinokaoi]

Besides the footage and all that seems pretty legit to me, my brain tells me, if we can't go to the moon now with our current technology, how it was even possible over 50yrs ago.

[astralmindny]

Wait a minute. The radiation in the Van Halen belt shouldn't have been too much of a problem, being that they could have avoided certain" hot spots, " but what about the temperature? The Van Halen belt consists of Plasma; both " cold Plasma, " AND" hot plasma." Cold plasma is about a few thousand degrees Celsius, and hot plasma is WWAAAYYY hotter. The only type of metal that can PROBABLY sustain those types of temperatures is titanium, and we all know that the shuttle isn't made out of titanium. And even if that was the case, they would have had to avoid EVERY hotspot perfectly, in order to reach the 🌒 without burning up. Now let's talk and the radio waves. I don't know about you, but I don't think that raido waves can go through plasma. They either get absorbed, or the bend. I'm not flat Earth theorists, but I'm about 62% sure that we didn't go to the Moon!!!

[nigelmccray]

What about the fact they had perfect signal to record everything when today we barely get good signals with advanced technology

[anonymoose]

Imagine flying 290, 000 km away from everything you've ever known.