There are two ways of looking at all those conversations you posted.
1. They are all liars who can't keep their stories straight but somehow have fooled the entire world for 50 years.
2. Differences in interior lighting, window materials, orbits, sun position, and eye light sensitivity means people see different things.
Number 2 is the obvious choice for me.
Considering Leroy Chiao has been on the ISS, and he says that during the day when you look into deep space it's the darkest black you can imagine, how do you explain how Mike Massimino and Don Pettit can see stars, moons, planets and the Magellanic clouds "pretty much all the time"?
It's not a difference in orbit because the orbit is the same. The sun position is irrelevant because they're all looking during the day away from the sun into deep space. Eye light sensitivity is not going to make two people see extremely faint details while some others would see the "darkest black you can imagine", unless these guys are blind. Window material is supposed to be the same and it wouldn't make such a difference. Interior lighting during the day is not going to make you stop seeing what's outside.
If you're going to pretend that different astronauts see totally different things in the same place then why trust anything they say they see? Seriously one might say something and some other one would say the total opposite, and maybe in their place we would see something totally different, so why listen to them at all if we see such a different world? Why believe pictures from space if other cameras or our own eyes would see something totally different? That's what your stance leads to.
I don't want to believe they're all liars but damn at least admit it when there is stuff that doesn't make sense, because there it's just your confirmation bias saying "there must be an explanation because I can't believe they would be lying". Yea well what if the explanation is they are lying? You don't want to believe it but what if it's true? The reasons you gave aren't valid so what's the explanation?
We bring up conformation bias because you see two people look at each other to see who is going to speak, and think that's suspicious behavior indicating a conspiracy.
If they were really looking to see who is going to speak, why do they then proceed to talk on top of each other again and again? Don't you see that saying that "they look at each other to see who is going to speak" is your own confirmation bias because you're assuming in the first place that they're telling the truth? Don't assume they're telling the truth and don't assume either they are lying but look at their body language, and indeed try to explain why would they look to see who is going to speak only to keep talking on top of each other for the rest of the conversation.
I do astrophotography as a hobby, I'm well aware of how lighting conditions can make it easier or harder to see stars, as well as how cameras work in general. I am not even slightly surprised two people in the same place can see differently. When I do stargazing it takes a good 15 minutes for my eyes to adjust. One guy looks at a bright light and he's not seeing anything out the windows for a while.
Doesn't explain how some guys can see the faintest details pretty much all the time and some others always see the darkest black you can imagine.
#3 0:20 Guy in the back left puts his hand out as he sees a foot coming at him, then reaches for something offscreen.
#3 0:36 I see the guy reaching behind him to gold on to a black curved bar.
What do you see?
#3 8:55 I see a woman floating in space, occasionally grabbing things and... her head is tilted to look at the camera? What is weird about wanting to have your face right side up for the camera?
What do you see wrong?
I'm gonna mention the precise timestamps, the timestamps I gave were supposed to be the beginning of the scene so you could see the context.
#3 0:22 What is the guy in the back left reaching for?
#3 0:47 I don't see a black curved bar, where is it? There is the wire of the mic but that's not what the guy is grabbing. His hand is visible and he appears to be grabbing something invisible while pulling the guy in blue towards him.
#3 From 9:00 to 9:07, don't focus on the tilt of her head. How can her whole body be moving in that way in zero-G? She has to grab something in order to not be carried away.
Every single 'contradiction' in American Moon is easily explained, and has been over and over. That video isn't anything new, it's a re-hash of stuff that's been floating around forever, and has been debunked over and over before that video took them and mixed them in with pop culture references. I can't take a video seriously that makes me watch clips of Minions and Coneheads as evidence of a vast ranging conspiracy. At least Capricorn 1 was a decent movie. But doesn't prove anything.
Oh really? Have you watched the whole documentary? Clips of Minions and Coneheads and Capricorn One aren't proof of anything, seriously if that's what you're focusing on out of all the important info and evidence in the documentary then maybe you aren't willing to discuss the evidence.
The documentary asks a series of 42 questions. The first question starts at the 1:13:13 mark. I have mentioned a few of them in this thread that have gone unanswered. I'm not gonna list them all, just a few. Here is the link of the documentary again :
https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/Question # 4 (see from 1:11:50 to 1:13:00) : How is it possible that one of the very few astronauts to have crossed the Van Allen belts doesn't even know where they are, and even doubts having gone "far enough out to encounter the Van Allen belts"?
Question # 10 (see from 1:23:55 to 1:26:20) : Given that this is the LEM’s ascent engine tested on Earth, why is there no visible flame under it when it takes off from the moon?
Question # 16 (see from 1:40:08 to 1:46:10) : Given that, according to NASA’s manual, "The HGA pointing must remain within 2.5° of Earth" and that "the video signal will degrade extremely rapidly beyond that point", how was it possible to broadcast images with such violent oscillations without the signal breaking nor degrading during the live feeds from the Moon?
Question # 21 (see from 1:55:52 to 2:00:30) : Given that these are not artefacts from video conversion, nor are they glares inside the lens, can you explain what these flashes of light sometimes appearing over the head of the astronauts actually are?
Question # 22 (see from 2:00:30 to 2:03:30) : Can you explain how it is possible to make a movement such as this one, this one, or this one, without some kind of external force pulling you upwards?
Questions # 27-30 (see from 2:21:35 to 2:30:38) :
Given that, according to NASA, "no practical method exists for eliminating cosmic radiation damage", and that "this degrading factor must be accepted", where is the degradation, significant but acceptable, that should appear on the lunar pictures?
Given that this is the result of cosmic rays’ impact on film within the magnetosphere, where radiation is weaker than in external space, can you explain why on the lunar pictures there are no visible signs of radiation damage?
Given that this is the result of a simple X-ray scan, which last only a few seconds, can you explain why in the Apollo pictures, which have been exposed to cosmic radiation for up to 8 consecutive hours, there is no visible graining whatsoever?
Given that the lunar surface gets hit by an average of one to four particles per square centimeter per second, and that the cameras have been out on the surface, unprotected, for up to 8 consecutive hours, can you explain why on the lunar pictures there are no signs of degradation due to the radiation?
Questions # 34-35 (see from 2:48:42 to 2:56:50) :
When the sun is on the side, all shadows on the ground must appear parallel to each other. Can you explain why in this NASA picture the shadow of the LEM and those of the rocks in the foreground appear to be clearly diverging instead?
Given that this scene is supposedly lit by the sun, which is millions of miles away, can you explain why the shadows lead to a source that is located not far from the left edge of the image instead?
Question # 37 (see from 2:57:03 to 3:00:00) : Being millions of miles away, the sun casts sharp shadows on the ground. Can you explain why in these pictures there is a soft edge all around the astronaut’s figure instead?
None of it makes me think "How there is a powerful evil in this world that works on deceiving and enslaving humanity." That's not in any of those videos, that's coming from your head. That's why most people don't see the same things you do, they see regular folks with incredible jobs doing neat things in space, and you see wires and deception everywhere. You have to ask yourself, if you see evil in all these people, where is that coming from?
When did I say that my realization there is a powerful evil in this world comes from these videos? That comes from your head, not mine. This realization comes from what I have seen and experienced, not from these videos.
Is there evil in the world? Hell yeah. But I don't think NASA is behind it all. People are jerks. Jerks do evil things. I wish there was one guy we could take out that is behind everything bad, but there isn't.
When did I say that NASA is behind it all? NASA would just be one part of the whole, one tentacle. Plenty of seemingly crazy conspiracy theories involving governments and government agencies turned out to be true. That of course doesn't prove that any seemingly crazy theory is true, but it should at least make us skeptical and not blindly trusting of what they want us to believe. And in the case of NASA there is a lot of evidence of deception.
There is always a logical explanation if you look closely enough.
And sometimes the only logical explanation remaining is that we are being deceived.
#3 9:00 Again, I see nothing wrong. At what exact second do you see her moving to the right that you can't explain? I see her reaching with her arm several times and moving her legs and nothing looks out of place to me. I'll need more exact timestamps.
Her waist is moving upwards/right, it's not her legs that are responsible for this movement. How does she get from the position at 9:02 to the one at 9:07? It clearly seems that if she wasn't holding on with her hand she would be carried away by an invisible force.