The catalyst for this article was discussions i had with two intelligent people who argue that man never set foot on the Moon. One has serious doubts and the other rejects the idea completely and it is the latter which has an extensive background in aerospace.
These recent discussions were certainly not my introduction into such claims however as i looked into this many moons ago (pun intended). There are many people who disbelieve that man walked on the Moon, some very smart and some just plain stupid, and the number seems to be growing. Smart people are just as easily fooled as is the dummy however.
If you've read some of the content on this website, especially in the history section, you'll know my beliefs are not main stream. I'm not sure they ever were. I enjoy finding fault with a given narrative and following the trail of breadcrumbs to a sound, or at least a logical conclusion. If you accused me of being a conspiracy theorist, i stand unapologetically guilty, however i'm also a conspiracy 'factist', if you will. I'm interested in truth, not confirming my own biases. Truth is not always easily discovered, however in this case there is a lot of evidence readily available and, in the end, that which is presented by the debunkers fails miserably when measured against the official claim.
My questioning of mainstream narratives began at an early age and when i delved into the validity of the Apollo Moon landings, i would not have been surprised in the least had the evidence led me to conclude that the whole thing was a big fat hoax as many believe. Matter of fact, i would have preferred such a result because it would have been yet another well deserved nail in the coffin of mainstream government bullshit.
I cannot prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that man set foot on the Moon. I wasn't there and i don't have physical access to the evidence. I've also learned to be critical of any claims i can't vet for myself, however there is indeed a wealth of evidence that strongly suggests we did, in fact, walk on the Moon and i'll lay out a tiny fraction of that evidence here. Yes, images, communications, telemetry and other evidence can be forged, however this overlooks the massive heap of evidence to the contrary as well as simple logic and reasoning. Simply put, the evidence which i've considered that the debunkers bring to the table ranges from completely retarded to inconclusive and much of it resides on the retarded end of the scale.
CLAIM: The entire Apollo 11 Moon landing was filmed using a miniature section model of the Moon hung upside down on a ceiling.
ANSWER: I don't know about this particular debunker, but personally i haven't yet been able to a) miniaturize myself to fit the scale of a model, b), managed to walk on my ceiling, or c), managed to kick up dust and drop things and have them fall up. Lastly, the morons who assembled the American Moon "documentary" in question rely on discussions about potential pitfalls that arose very early during the planning stages of the space program when a great deal of questions had no concrete answers, as though nothing further could be learned and nothing could possibly be changed during subsequent research and development.
CLAIM: Wikileaks released video showing the moon landing was shot in a studio.
ANSWER: Wikileaks never published any such information. The video is a compilation which includes behind the scenes footage from the filming of Capricorn 1 (1970) and actual footage of the Apollo 11 Moon landing. Even the "fact checking" website Snopes, founded by a criminal and staffed by prostitutes, actually gets this one right.
Links to the full videos:
CLAIM: The Apollo missions never left Earth orbit.
ANSWER: If that was the case then there should be evidence of sightings of the Command Module as it orbited Earth in the night sky due to light from the Sun reflecting off of it as is the case with satellites.
CLAIM: There can be no combustion in a vacuum.
ANSWER: Fuels that contain or produce oxygen as they burn will burn in an oxygen deprived environment.
CLAIM: There is nothing in a vacuum for a rocket engine to push against.
ANSWER: Every reaction creates and equal and opposite reaction, even in a vacuum.
CLAIM: The intense radiation level of Earths Van Allen Belts were not survivable by a human given the minimal protection offered by the craft.
ANSWER: While "minimal" is an exaggeration, the claim is not entirely without merit. That aside, the level of radiation doesn't matter if you pass through the belts quickly enough. From Apollo Rocketed Through the Van Allen Belts | Popular Science:
By February of 1964, NASA was confident that Apollo crews would be passing through the belts fast enough that the spacecraft’s skin and all the instrumentation lining the walls would be enough protection.
[...]
To monitor radiation exposure during the flights, Apollo crews carried dosimeters on board their spacecraft and on their persons. And these readings confirmed NASA had made a good choice. At the end of the program, the agency determined that its astronauts had avoided the large radiation doses many feared would ground flights to the Moon. Over the course of the lunar missions, astronauts were exposed to doses lower than the yearly 5 rem average experienced by workers with the Atomic Energy Commission who regularly deal with radioactive materials.
CLAIM: There's no blast crater or radial dispersion of material under the Lunar Excursion Module which would have resulted from its engine.
ANSWER: The Moon is a rock; gravity is 1/6th that of Earth so not as much thrust is required to land as would be necessary on Earth; in some instances the engine was apparently shut down just prior to the Lunar Module contacting the surface in order to avoid debris from damaging it; dispersion of the dust can be seen in some photographs captured from the Command Module, the Japanese Space Agency Selene probe, the Indian Chandrayaan-1 probe, all of which would have to be co-conspirators.
CLAIM: The Lunar Module was too fragile to withstand space travel.
ANSWER: This claim often seems to hinge on a "thin foil" being the only barrier to space in parts of the Lunar Module which is a gross exaggeration. This argument is then used to insinuate that the entire 36,000 lb. machine was fragile.
CLAIM: Lack of a radial disbursement of material under the Lunar Modules engine nozzle cannot be explained by shutting down the engine on the Lunar Module before touchdown since this would have risked damaging the fragile vehicle.
ANSWER: The Lunar Module had some serious shock absorption capability with the primary struts having 32 in. of compression travel; the Lunar Module could sustain a fall of approximately 40 feet; the Lunar Module weighed approximately 36,000 lbs. on Earth, but far less on the Moon; considering its Earth weight alone, much less the added load and tremendous vibration it needed to withstand during the Apollo launch, the Lunar Module was obviously not the flimsy contraption the debunkers would have us believe.
CLAIM: Stanly Kubrick confessed to filming the Apollo 11 Moon sequence.
ANSWER: "In a statement released through a spokesperson, the [Kubrick] family made it clear the film published on YouTube was a complete hoax, using an actor who was purporting to be the Clockwork Orange film director." (source)
CLAIM: The U.S. flag is blowing in the wind on the "Moon".
ANSWER: Momentum happens in a vacuum too when the pole to which the flag is attached is adjusted. And if the Apollo 11 mission was filmed in a studio, well, there's no wind there either. Lastly, this assumes those perpetrating the hoax were too stupid to recognize such a blatantly obvious oversight.
CLAIM: There's a photo of a Coke can on the Moon.
ANSWER: See the last part of the answer above. There was plenty of other equipment left on the Moon however as is evidenced in photographs captured by probes sent by several countries, as well as those captured by the Apollo Command Module, all of which the debunkers avoid. Such equipment includes 70+ vehicles, vehicle tracks, sensors, transmitters, seismometers, reflectors, Lunar Modules, payload transport pallets, solar panels, cameras, foot prints, and the Apollo 11 service module which may still be orbiting the Moon, all of which would have to be forgeries by several countries, all of which would have had to be co-conspirators. Lastly, forging this much evidence is utterly unnecessary as it only increases the risk that the hoax would be exposed.
CLAIM: Converging shadows prove that the light source was much closer to the areas being photographed than the Sun would have been, therefore the Moon photography was performed in a studio.
ANSWER: Easily debunked using a light bulb and 2 fingers to create shadows on a table. Shadows can indeed converge, especially when they are produced by irregularly shaped objects resting on an irregular surface, and this is not dependent on the distance of the light source. There is also the matter of perspective.
CLAIM: There are no stars in the photographs allegedly taken from the Moon.
ANSWER: There's no stars because the camera exposure was set to account for the bright, highly reflective surface of the Moon. Ever notice how many fewer stars you can see with the naked eye during a full Moon? Now imagine the light from the Sun as seen on the Moon with no atmosphere in between.
CLAIM: There are no stars in photographs taken from the Moon because it would have been impossible to create an accurate representation of the visible universe.
ANSWER: They couldn't have used enlarged photographs of the universe as a backdrop? Or plotted stars on a backdrop from photographs? Also see the above answer.
CLAIM: The astronauts said they didn't see any stars.
ANSWER: While some of the Apollo astronauts did in fact state they didn't recall seeing any stars from specific perspectives, some also stated that they could see stars when standing in the shadow of the Lunar Module, when orbiting the back side of the Moon, or when looking through optical devices. Also the astronauts had darkened visors to protect their eyes during the Moon walks. Also see the above answers.
CLAIM: The astronauts are too well lit in photographs when they were in shade.
ANSWER: The Moon is highly reflective; lightening of darker areas can be accomplished in the darkroom (known as "dodging").
CLAIM: Photographs taken by astronauts on the Moon are too well composed considering there was no viewfinder on their cameras.
ANSWER: Have you seen all of them? Did cropping photographs suddenly become impossible post Moon landing? Did they not practice beforehand? Is it necessary to forge 8,000+ photographs in order to perpetrate a hoax?
CLAIM: The camera crosshairs in photographs on the "Moon" are behind certain objects.
ANSWER: While that indeed appears to be the case in some of the photographs, it isn't. The crosshairs were on a glass plate in the camera so they could not possibly be behind anything in front of the camera, and if it is posited that the Hasselblad cameras never existed, then a sheet of glass or a filter with the crosshairs on it could be placed in front of the camera lens, or they could be added when printing the photographs. In either case the crosshairs can never be behind anything. The reason the crosshairs appear to be behind certain objects in some of the photographs is because they are washed out when they intersect a bright object, such as a space suit, and, in fact, the crosshairs can be seen in some of the photographs used by the debunkers.
CLAIM: Given the technical challenges it is extremely unlikely that 6 out of 7 Apollo missions could have met with success.
ANSWER: This ignores all that happened prior to Apollo 11. The space program had many failures, including the loss of at least 3 astronauts. So did the automobile industry. Do we not learn from our mistakes? NASA had to be as certain as possible that, as Kennedy stated, we could land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth. The space program was a massive effort that, contrary to what some of the debunkers imply, wasn't thrown together over night by a bunch of idiots. All of the debunking videos i've seen feature clip after clip of NASA failures early in the space program while omitting mention of many of the successes. The aircraft industry had many more failures, yet planes are flying today because lessons were learned and changes were made. Furthermore, why fake 6 landings? Why not quit after 1 or 2? Again, the more fakery, the higher the chance of being exposed.
CLAIM: Some of the Apollo 11 astronauts acted strange upon return, as though they had been threatened to not disclose the hoax.
ANSWER: This is another very thin claim, however assuming the astronauts actually did act strange upon return, i think this could possibly be due to having seen things they didn't expect, possibly on the way to the Moon or on their orbit around the dark side of the planet (there is some evidence of artificial structures on the dark side which is never seen from Earth). Another possible answer is their general state of fatigue after having endured such an intense and dangerous mission.
CLAIM: Given the complexity and technological limitations of the time, it would have been impossible for the Service Module to re-dock with the Command Module after leaving the Moon.
ANSWER: This is the only potentially reasonable argument against the Apollo Moon landings that i've heard and, quite interestingly, this argument was made by a friend who spent decades in the aerospace industry, much of that working with missile systems apparently. The basis of the argument is that the docking, given the equipment and technology available at that time, including very limited computing power, would have made it impossible to perform such an incredibly complex, delicate and precise maneuver. I think this argument overlooks the human-in-the-loop factor however. While re-docking was certainly a highly complex operation, which is why it was practiced successfully during the Gemini program, i suspect the automated portion of it (computer controlled burn times, vectoring, etc.) would only have to place the Service Module in the proximity of the Command Module on approximately the same course and velocity after which the pilot could take control and do what the computers may have been incapable of.
One of the most obvious shortcomings of the debunkers is that they conveniently ignore the mountainous body of convincing evidence which contradict their claims, including that provided by countries and organizations other than NASA which orbited the moon and photographed some of the equipment left there during the Apollo program. Such evidence is the result of the work of approximately 400,000 people over a ten year period. One cannot possibly ignore this evidence and proclaim to be objective and when both bodies of evidence are weighed, it is blatantly obvious on which side the credibility lies.
A massive compilation of photographs, video and information for Apollo missions 11 to 17 is contained on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website. Also see the MOON HOAX: DEBUNKED! website as well as this fine video from the SmarterEveryDay YouTube channel which explores the construction of the Saturn 5 rocket:
I dont believe man has ever set foot on the moon. % dercades later, no ther country has done it? – There should at least be a McDonalds up there by now.
You are right I believe, where you say even smart people can be fooled. Jarrah has a website that is exceptional in debunking manned moon landings, however he tells people the get the Jabs. There is also another fantastic website that looks into the moon landings ( alleged )
http://moonfaker.com/home.html
https://www.aulis.com/index.html
cheers :)
i would argue that the proof is the fact that other countries, in addition to the U.S., have sent probes to the moon and photographed the stuff left behind by the Apollo missions. are they all perpetuating the hoax too?
as far as the debunking nonsense, i’ve seen all i can handle – it is ALL illogical and unsupported by facts, at best, and just plain stupid at worst
the advice i’d like to give everyone is to follow the evidence, not biases
as i wrote in the article, i expected to find that the landings were bullshit, but that is NOT what the evidence dictates and there is much more than a plethora of it to consider
It is entirely possible to plonk something on the moon without having a man set foot on it. As for the photos of all the equipment, hi resolution pics that prove beyond all reasonable doubt are they? would you mind sharing a link to the best one? As for evidence. That is why I posted the links I did. I doubt you had time to read even a fraction of it in the time between my comment and your reply.
> It is entirely possible to plonk something on the moon without having a man set foot on it.
of course, and this has in fact been done multiple times by multiple countries which *photographed* stuff left by Apollo including the landing modules, footprints, vehicle tracks, reflectors and piles of other garbage
> As for the photos of all the equipment, hi resolution pics that prove beyond all reasonable doubt are they?
nothing is beyond doubt – did you read my article? i never said anyone set foot on the moon, i said that the evidence that we landed (and walked) on the moon is so overwhelming that it demolishes the “evidence” to the contrary which is largely retarded, the remainder being very sketchy at best
> would you mind sharing a link to the best one?
the images i found are linked in the article – i’m sure more are available if you poke around
> I doubt you had time to read even a fraction of it in the time between my comment and your reply.
you got me there! i broke my own no. 1 rule: consider ALL evidence
why did i break it? because i’ve considered so much moon hoax garbage bullshit that i expected this ‘new’ evidence to be garbage also and, given the little bit i did consider, it is (i added a couple of comments to your original that maybe you didn’t see)
look, it’s really simple: you have decades worth of evidence in the form of literally tons and tons and more tons of documents, and testing, and photographs, and film, compiled by multiple countries, none of which disagree that the U.S. stuck men on the moon even though at least one of those countries is a (alleged) perpetual enemy of the U.S. (Russia)
compare that to the flip side where you have f’ing morons claiming the Apollo landings were filmed using a model stuck upside down on the ceiling in a studio, or that shadows can’t converge, or that we left a coke can on the fake moon, or etc., etc., etc….
which sounds more creditable to you?
many of us want to believe a certain thing, myself very much included (as i said i expected the landings to have been faked), but the honest researcher will ultimately allow the evidence to decide and in the case of the moon, the creditably is most clearly not on the anti-mooners side, not by a long shot
jesus christ, i just watched the beginning of the “MoonFaker: Exhibit A” video – less than 2 minutes in the f’ing dipshit admits he’s a flat-earther! credibility=0
next…
the scrambled-brain ding-dong at aulis.com writes on /apollo_kubrick2.htm that Kubrick wasn’t in on it and that the job was done in the UK…. then writes that Kubrick was in on it, but only because he was duped into participating
might the real answer be that Kubrick participated willingly in an effort to divide public consciousness by insinuating that the landings were faked? the CIA’s been doin’ it for 70+ years and they have a hell of a lot of pull in the film industry, and Kubrick was a very smart Jew
“It is now known that the Apollo program itself was a cover for building and launching the CORONA imaging reconnaissance spy satellites”
really? there’s rockets going up constantly – why would any “cover” be necessary?
“This was also the case for his subsequent films all of which contain references which can be construed as referring to the circumstances surrounding the Apollo missions.”
mmmhmm… as long as you do a lot of construing, that is
i’ll quit there
nothing at all against you my friend, but i’ll beat the living shit out of any “evidence” that isn’t supported by neither logic nor fact
hi guest, as far as I understand it the moon hoax debunkers are those who try to refute the idea we never went to the moon, as in Paolo Attivissimo and his “Moon Hoax: Debunked!”. as for me I don’t think we descended from primates and biblical earth has a beautiful ring to it, but hey, I’m only curious and not a researcher. namaste
he does not admit he is a flat earther. he specifically argues against flat earth.
maybe it wasn’t his video then?
listen to the video at around the 1:20 mark…
http://moonfaker.com/playvid.php?id=ExibA
is that the voice of the website author?
he does has a funny way of talking.. and he talks pretty fast. i listened at the 1:20 mark a few times, and still cant work out what he was saying about the astronomers and the sun and the earth.. anyway – if you look here, he has on more than one occassion, gone out of his way to state in no uncertain terms, the earth is round.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwBvzkTCYZ4
8,135 views 9 Dec 2015
“Our shuttles routinely blast off to orbit the Earth. There is not a single doubt that man is in space!” ~ Ralph René
Back in 2009, I was producing a new series called “Why We Know The Earth Is Round”. I completed the first draft and sent it off to be checked over. But ultimately I decided to abandon the project, because trying to prove the Earth is round is like trying to prove that the sky is blue or that the Sun came up this morning. Trying to prove something that is self evident is a complete waste of my time and talent.
Unfortunately in recent years, especially with the release of all of my SpaceX progress videos, the comments of my videos have become a dumping ground for comments left by morons who think the Earth is flat or that all space travel is faked because of the “fact” that rockets don’t work in a vacuum. For the most part, I chose to ignore this crap. But it has now gotten to the stage where some of these deniers have accused me of being a “paid NASA shill” because of my support of SpaceX (a private group whose only association with NASA is a seller/customer relationship!), because I don’t doubt everything NASA has done in space, and because I don’t conform to their ridiculous nonsense.
This topic was brought up on a recent Vinny Eastwood radio show that I did last August. I have decided to share this clip from said interview with you simply because I’m fed up with all the bullshit that I have to put up with from Flat Earthers and Space Travel Deniers. This video will be the closest you’ll get from me making a video debunking these idiots. I only give my attention to serious researchers, not deniers. If the Flat Earthers and Space Travel Deniers were serious researchers, they wouldn’t be Flat Earthers and Space Travel Deniers to begin with.
I leave you with these wise words of Ralph René, who died seven years ago today: “Now you are entitled to believe anything you want. However, remember that when observational data or experiment conflicts with a theory, no matter how beautiful the theory or impressive the credentials of its author, a rational person pitches out the theory.”
————————————————
the flat earthers actually seem to not like him :)
https://www.flatearthscience.org/moab-and-clown-jarrah-white-tied-for-mother-of-all-bullshit/
anyway.. a second light source on the moon? frankly impossible. case closed :)
https://www.aulis.com/raytracing.htm
if you want to talk install mumble and i’ll give you a server to connect to
and crickets….
i had to go work.. :)
thanks for fixing my misplaced reply.
id have a chat you any time, but what would be the point, we are both convinced it seems.
i do believe jarah is a bit of a nutter, re his stance on covid and the fact he wants people to donate so he can buy his grandmothers house. thats another story, but when someone questioned his credentials, re all the stuff he talked about re the moon, they said, well, its not like youre an astro physisist, so he became a qualified astro physicist, so theres that. – im sure you are getting him mixed up with someone else re all his flat earth stuff.. he is not that silly. this is his news page, http://moonfaker.com/news.html – see his dec 10 entry..
anyway, I dont care if everyone in the world believes we went to the moon. I just dont :)
all the best.
anyway, i did post TWO links, and youve said nothing about the other one.
sorry for getting testie last night – i was havin’ a few beverages, listening to music, and then YOU came along! kidding of course :)
i briefly looked at both links you provided and commented on both here
if you want to talk some time, i’m all ears – i’d be interested in hearing about the evidence you’ve collected – mumble is a trusted, free, encrypted, open-source voice/text chat program if you want to give it a spin
:) – no need to apologise! – this is the internet, i have a thick skin.
i posted a long comment before, it didnt show up. anyway, for anyone else that may be interested in another point of view, ill post this final link
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/
thanks !
comments with 3+ links are auto-held for manual approval – no worries
center for an informed america – that was McGowan’s site! i discovered him quite a long time ago when i found his excellent piece on the hippy generation and its connections to military and the intel community – Inside The LC: The Strange but Mostly True Story of Laurel Canyon and the Birth of the Hippie Generation
he was in a great position to write that piece given he lived in that area and his research came across as thorough and neutral
some of his other works, such as his writings on 9/11 and the Nazis, are far less impressive and chock full of errors
nevertheless, i watched some interviews with him before he kicked and he struck me as a really nice guy
in ‘Wagging the Moondoggie’ he opens with a quote from von Braun but doesn’t provide a date – it’s an interesting choice given von Braun and the rest of his crew were largely responsible for ultimately getting us to the moon – the absence of a date is significant because no one, including von Braun apparently, thought we could fly to the moon before we actually developed the technology
Dave writes “It is not just the Soviets, of course, who have never made it to the Moon. The Chinese haven’t either. Nor has any other industrialized nation …” and “Why has no other nation ever attempted to send a manned spacecraft anywhere beyond low-Earth orbit?”
the article is dated 2009 and by then, China, Russia, India, Japan and the EU space agency have all went to the moon multiple times and probed, photographed and/or landed vehicles or equipment on the moon – Russia first “landed” (landed=crashed) in ’59
he writes that “The point here though is that advances in aerospace technology mirror advances in consumer technology …”
nonsense – the reverse is true
practically everything we have to today (plastics, adhesives, foils, composites, exotic metals, insulation, electronics, etc.) was invented during the space program – some of this tech then made its way to the commercial sector through technology transfer programs
ultimately Dave’s article is littered with inaccuracies, gross exaggerations and short-sighted statements like this one…
“The total distance traveled during the alleged missions, including Earth and Moon orbits, ranged from 622,268 miles for Apollo 13 to 1,484,934 miles for Apollo 17. All on a single tank of gas.”
…as though the engine would have to running the entire time, thus requiring an impossible amount of fuel
and this one…
“Neil and the guys did exhibit some playfulness at times while allegedly walking on the Moon, but doesn’t it seem a bit odd that they failed to do anything that couldn’t be faked simply by changing the tape speed?”
…which is a wildly short-sighted statement for reasons which should be obvious to any thinking person with a modicum of understanding of the most basic physics
practically every single paragraph in the article consists of unsubstantiated speculation supported by the most crude observations…
“When Fox ran a special on the Moon landings some years back and reported that 1-in-5 Americans had doubts about the Apollo missions […] All of those websites fail to mention, of course, that among the people who experienced the events as they were occurring, nearly 1-in-3 had doubts, a number considerably higher than the number that Fox used.”
new discoveries aren’t automatically accepted by everyone the instant they’re announced, kind of like when it was discovered that the earth wasn’t flat
page after page of nonsensical speculation which, in the end, proves nothing other than Dave, as likable as he was, obviously wasn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer
ahhh – 3 link limit.. got it
i do appreciate the comprehensive replies! ?
i watched 3 or 4 more of his videos and it’s the same guy – he stated in the first one that the sun revolves around the earth
in his other videos he wasted my time with bullshit arguments – one video was about someone offering someone money…he said, she said, blah blah blah, another was about an alleged time difference between Apollo and a newspaper article and the 3rd was about whether some film was edited or not and another was about his god damned youtube channel being taken down because he was exposing the truth
all of this is solid mega-evidence that we never landed on the moon of course
he strikes me as a biased paranoid nut-job that’s incapable of rational thought
So where is the Lunar rover, why aren’t there a rover on the Moon right now doing things to examine the surface, heck, why don’t they send up a digging robot to examine the moon from the inside? why don’t they examine the dark side of the moon (just let that sink in that there even is such a thing)
for whatever reason your comment was flagged as spam – sorry about that
you asked where the lunar rover is – there are 5 of them, still on the moon, and in total around 70 vehicles placed there by several countries
how could they see the earth from the moon and no stars, meanwhile we can see the moon from the earth with stars in a denser atmosphere? and the earth isn’t even supposed to be that bright, so why could they see the earth which has a weak light meanwhile they can’t see the stars…
i think the “no stars” argument is a weak one – first of all the moon is (obviously) highly reflective – secondly one or more of the Apollo astronauts said they could see stars when standing in the shadow of the LEM – thirdly, you said “they”, so i’m not sure if you’re referring to the astronauts or cameras, the latter of which would have to be stopped down (smaller aperture/faster speed) in order to not washout whatever was being photographed in a very bright environment – lastly, if i recall correctly, the astronaut helmets were equipped with a tinted shield/visor which, again, would make seeing the stars more difficult
there are many questions (and that’s an understatement) that would have to be addressed for one to disprove or discredit the moon landings, among them are the piles of vehicles, tracks, experiments and landing stages that were left on the moon by the Apollo missions and photographed by at least 4 countries (the debunkers of course avoid the issue entirely from what i’ve seen) – solving that problem would be of far greater value IMO
that said, i’ll close with the same statement i made in the article; can i prove we landed? NO! do i believe we did? absolutely because the mountains of evidence dictate so