[ElTrancy]

Hello, I am not a Flat Earther, but I do have a question for the Flat Eathers. If I can PROVE the Moon Landing wasn't faked, does that mean I have disproved the Earth is Flat? The Moon -According to many Flat Earthers- is not actually a place, and is another government scheme, but if people have been there, that means it is real. Please, prove the Moon landing was fake, and I'll believe the Earth is flat. Not until then, though.

[Parallax]

There is lots of footage on YouTube to demonstrate the fakery. The way the astronauts bounce as if they are on wires for one. The pathetic lunar landing module that looks like it was wrapped in tin foil. And how is it that they can get a little tv camera to broadcast images, from the moon, in 1969, uninterrupted, back to earth? Yet today, in 2018 if it gets a bit cloudy outside my Sky TV loses its satellite signal? No, primitive 60's technology couldn't achieve that. However, if you could prove it happened, it wouldn't disprove flat earth, just prove NASA went to the moon. They planted a flag, yes? Why was it blowing? Why can people not look through a powerful telescope and see a flag? There isn't one. Please provide proof of the flag that's allegedly there and silence us all.

[Westprog]

...if you could prove it happened, it wouldn't disprove flat earth, just prove NASA went to the moon. ...

There you have it. The failure to go to the Moon proves something. Actually going to the Moonexper - still it's a flat Earth. This is not a theory to be debunked by experiment or observation.

[Parallax]

Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.

[AATW]

Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.

CGI in the late 1960s? Really?

[Parallax]

Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.

CGI in the late 1960s? Really?

So it's acceptable to believe that they could stick man on the moon but not fake an image of the earth? And I use 'CGI' loosely, its 'CGI' in its most primitive form.

[Westprog]

Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.

CGI in the late 1960s? Really?

They had CGI but not the ability to send a TV signal from the moon. The True History Of Tech.

[Parallax]

It wasn't 'CGI', it was the earliest form of what would become 'CGI'.

[AATW]

So it's acceptable to believe that they could stick man on the moon but not fake an image of the earth? And I use 'CGI' loosely, its 'CGI' in its most primitive form.

Ha. Ok, I’ll give you that.
But your earlier point, I don’t think YouTube is brilliant evidence, there’s a kinds of crazy stuff on there.
Which doesn’t mean everything on there is crazy, but you can find crazy stuff to back up any viewpoint on there.
The question is could they have faked it to the satisfaction of the Russians who never called the US out on faking it and kept the thousands of people involved in it all quiet. Can you imagine how many people would have had to be involved?

The moon landings are one of the best documented events in history. A few vague theories about flags waving or shadow angles from conspiracy theorists isn’t going to cut it. Read “Man On The Moon” by Andrew Chaikin and tell me that level of detail could be faked.

[Parallax]

So it's acceptable to believe that they could stick man on the moon but not fake an image of the earth? And I use 'CGI' loosely, its 'CGI' in its most primitive form.

Ha. Ok, I’ll give you that.
But your earlier point, I don’t think YouTube is brilliant evidence, there’s a kinds of crazy stuff on there.
Which doesn’t mean everything on there is crazy, but you can find crazy stuff to back up any viewpoint on there.
The question is could they have faked it to the satisfaction of the Russians who never called the US out on faking it and kept the thousands of people involved in it all quiet. Can you imagine how many people would have had to be involved?

The moon landings are one of the best documented events in history. A few vague theories about flags waving or shadow angles from conspiracy theorists isn’t going to cut it. Read “Man On The Moon” by Andrew Chaikin and tell me that level of detail could be faked.

I absolutely agree about YouTube. Some of it is on a whole new level of insanity, but some videos put forth coherent arguments. And a lot of those videos are interesting and get you thinking.

As for the Russians, TBH yes I do think they convinced them. Certainly in 1969 the level of footage would have been state of the art (unlike some people I've seen I don't believe the Soviets were in on it), and if the Soviet scientists were duped then the government would listen to them. I do think that the people involved would have been top level and therefore easier to cover up.

[Curious Squirrel]

Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.

What? What's this then? Seems to be exactly what you want. One non-CGI shot of the complete planet from space.

[Frocious]

Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.

What? What's this then? Seems to be exactly what you want. One non-CGI shot of the complete planet from space.

And here is some real-time (non-CGI) footage of the earth.

https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

[Parallax]

Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.

What? What's this then? Seems to be exactly what you want. One non-CGI shot of the complete planet from space.

It's cgi clear as day. Doesn't even look real, has a clear cig look about it. And on closer inspection the original blue marble shot looks like its had modern computers brushing it up.

Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.

What? What's this then? Seems to be exactly what you want. One non-CGI shot of the complete planet from space.

And here is some real-time (non-CGI) footage of the earth.

https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

Fakery, with modern technology they can easily create some fake 'real time, non cgi' footage of earth from the 'ISS'.

[Curious Squirrel]

Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.

What? What's this then? Seems to be exactly what you want. One non-CGI shot of the complete planet from space.

It's cgi clear as day. Doesn't even look real, has a clear cig look about it. And on closer inspection the original blue marble shot looks like its had modern computers brushing it up.

Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.

What? What's this then? Seems to be exactly what you want. One non-CGI shot of the complete planet from space.

And here is some real-time (non-CGI) footage of the earth.

https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

Fakery, with modern technology they can easily create some fake 'real time, non cgi' footage of earth from the 'ISS'.

Define 'cgi look' and show how you know it's fake. You lot love to throw these phrases about, but rarely if ever actually back them up. Let's see it. Ditto for the Himawari8 sat. Where's your evidence to claim both are fake?

I'd also love to see you support and define this bit too if you please

modern computers brushing it up.

[Tumeni]

There is lots of footage on YouTube to demonstrate the fakery.

Disagree

The way the astronauts bounce as if they are on wires for one.

Yet there's no actual PROOF of any wires...

The pathetic lunar landing module that looks like it was wrapped in tin foil.

Why does putting an outer layer of foil on something cast doubt upon its integrity? (see below)

"And how is it that they can get a little tv camera to broadcast images, from the moon, in 1969, uninterrupted, back to earth? Yet today, in 2018 if it gets a bit cloudy outside my Sky TV loses its satellite signal?"

You have a small dish. NASA used big dishes to receive what Apollo was transmitting. The method of transmission differed, too.

Why was it (the flag) blowing?

It wasn't

Why can people not look through a powerful telescope and see a flag?

Because it's beyond the capability of optics at the moment

Lunar Module

Here's the pressure vessel viewed toward the top of the vehicle, showing the docking hatch which connected to the Command Module, and the rectangular window for viewing the docking aid. The windows and hatch used for entry and exit on the Moon are hidden, and are to the top of the assembly.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-05.jpg

Here's the view from the rear once most/all of the ancillary 'stuff' has been bolted onto the side of the pressure vessel. This includes various tanks, and the electrical/system panel (to the left in this photo). The CM hatch is to the top, and lunar hatch hidden to the right.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-16.jpg

As you can see, we have pictures noID-05 and noID-16 here - change the URL manually in your browser bar, and you can see a host of others, from 02 to nn.

02 shows the intermediate stage of foil wrap
03 shows a tech working on the rear section, with CM hatch to the top
04 shows the descent stage
05 is referenced above
06 shows the descent stage from below
07 shows the ascent and descent stages together
08 shows both stages from the side, lunar hatch to the right
09 shows ascent stage with lunar hatch to front right
10 shows ascent stage with lunar hatch to the front, and some ancillaries attached
11 shows ascent stage from below with lunar hatch front left
12 shows ascent and descent stage with some ancillaries
13 shows 'naked' ascent and descent stages
14 shows descent stage
15 shows descent stage
16 is referenced above
17 shows transport of LM
18 shows rear of ascent stage with ancillaries, especially the electrical panel
19 shows the ascent stage with lunar hatch to the front
20 shows ascent stage from rear left with ancillaries
21 shows descent stage
22 shows transport of LM
23 shows ascent stage with ancillaries, lunar hatch front right
24 shows the fairing to go around the LM on the Saturn V
25 shows an almost-complete ascent stage, lunar hatch to the left
26 shows the pressure vessel atop the descent stage skeleton
27 shows almost-complete ascent and descent stage from the rear
28 shows almost-complete ascent and descent stage from the side, lunar hatch to the left

etc
etc

[Tumeni]

I use 'CGI' loosely, its 'CGI' in its most primitive form.

Why is it that contradictory Team Hoaxers never argue with each other?

You say NASA had CGI to fake Moon pics. Others say that the Command Module computer lacked the power to carry out the mission. So they had computing power for one, but not the other?

[Tumeni]

It's cgi clear as day. Doesn't even look real, has a clear cig look about it.

How do you determine this, and prove it beyond all reasonable doubt?

[stanlee]

prove its real?

[Spycrab]

No one's mentioned the lunar retro-reflectors yet, so I'll throw these in the ring too. Have fun with some harder to disprove evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
How do those get there without us heading to the moon?

[ElTrancy]

I was wondering how fast you Flattards would respond. Let's make this really simple for your addlepate brains. If the moon was as close as you think it is, clearly closer than 6000 miles, as that is the largest distance I have found Flattards speaking of the Sun, and if the Moon Landing wasn't faked, take a moment. With a telescope, you could see the men on the Moon, and since the moon isn't as large as it is in the real world, the men, and their lunar ship would be HUGE compared to how it is in the real world. Also, you're saying 400,000 NASA employees would have to keep primitive "CGI" secret? Wow, you Flattards really don't know how much NASA employees talk. Also, we convinced the rest of the world to lie for us, just so we could be the first to the "Moon?" or how you Flattards think "keep the shape of the Earth secret?". Oh! Did I mention it would have been nearly impossible to make the shadows from the moon landing without CGI in 1968? The shadows run parallel, which can only happen with a light source SUPER far away, like the Sun...and the only way to make that effect without CGI is with lasers lined up like pixels on a TV screen. Problem, the lasers in 1968 were expensive, and really big. And by expensive, I mean more than the ENTIRE BUDGET of the Apollo Missions. And they were red, so the color pictures we have of the moon wouldn't have been possible! And yeah, as Spycrab said, ya'll know the lunar retro-reflectors are real things, right?