I believe the moon landings were real, but I believe the footage to prove that there was the moon landing, was fake. There’s a huge difference. Yes, I believe we went to the moon, because my dad was part of the team. He was not a crisis actor, he was a legitimate rocket scientist. And I have notebooks up on notebooks to prove what he did for a living!
Not that I necessarily take your word on it being real, but the footage was fake, not the landing. A more accurate statement from my stancepoint would be that I don’t know what the landing looked like, or if it happened or not, but the footage was fake, not the landing.
I recently saw a video by the YouTube channel called The Why Files entitled: "The Moon Landing: Stanley Kubrick's Greatest Film | How NASA and Hollywood Fooled the World"
The video sets forth the points people make as to why it was hoaxed, as well as the very valid incentives why there would be a reason to fake it since the USA was in a race to demoralize the USSR. Then it shows evidence to disprove much of it. It does leave questions unexplained, like why astronauts are today talking about in the future it may be possible to travel further than lower orbit, etc. One of the points people make is that you cannot see stars in the photos taken on the moon. But having studied photography, I know that the aperture would have be small, otherwise everything would be a big white blur just to capture the stars in a photo. It also shows how that interview with Stanley Kubrick was actually an actor faking it. There are still many questions remaining though, and the one thing the video mentions at the end is that whistleblower who saw stuff on the far side of the moon.
One of the weirdest discoveries in Wikileaks is the unclassified communication regarding a Soviet attack on a US moonbase in the '70s. Wild stuff.
I believe the moon landings were real, but I believe the footage to prove that there was the moon landing, was fake. There’s a huge difference. Yes, I believe we went to the moon, because my dad was part of the team. He was not a crisis actor, he was a legitimate rocket scientist. And I have notebooks up on notebooks to prove what he did for a living!
Great clarification, agreed!
Not that I necessarily take your word on it being real, but the footage was fake, not the landing. A more accurate statement from my stancepoint would be that I don’t know what the landing looked like, or if it happened or not, but the footage was fake, not the landing.
I recently saw a video by the YouTube channel called The Why Files entitled: "The Moon Landing: Stanley Kubrick's Greatest Film | How NASA and Hollywood Fooled the World"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDyJe1nmSOM
The video sets forth the points people make as to why it was hoaxed, as well as the very valid incentives why there would be a reason to fake it since the USA was in a race to demoralize the USSR. Then it shows evidence to disprove much of it. It does leave questions unexplained, like why astronauts are today talking about in the future it may be possible to travel further than lower orbit, etc. One of the points people make is that you cannot see stars in the photos taken on the moon. But having studied photography, I know that the aperture would have be small, otherwise everything would be a big white blur just to capture the stars in a photo. It also shows how that interview with Stanley Kubrick was actually an actor faking it. There are still many questions remaining though, and the one thing the video mentions at the end is that whistleblower who saw stuff on the far side of the moon.
One of the weirdest discoveries in Wikileaks is the unclassified communication regarding a Soviet attack on a US moonbase in the '70s. Wild stuff.