The Fox video showed a different side of a conspiracy theory I was already familiar with as one of the

craziest out there that is, the idea that humankind may never have actually landed on the moon. It
showed some logical reasons people might believe that the moon landing was a hoax, and was framed
in such a way to present its arguments very convincingly. That said, I still feel at the end of the video that
the moon landing was a real occurrence in the 60s just, that we may not know all there is to know
about it.
I felt the same as many of those who spoke towards the end of the Fox video that those who refute
the moon loading and call it a hoax are, for lack of a better word, nuts. However, I have to admit there is
some evidence presented here I never considered before. What I am most concerned about from this
video are the pictures that the astronauts allegedly took from the moon. The lighting issues are
definitely issues although I think that this would have been considered by NASA and subverted
somehow (perhaps reflective equipment)? What are even more concerning to me are the crosshairs
permanently etched on the camera and how, in some of the pictures, they appear behind objects. Still, it
doesnt make sense to me that this would happen on a soundstage, either. Why would crosshairs be
printed in the background of a set, as opposed to etched into those cameras? They easily could have
been edited out of being on top of the objects afterwards. I know that we did not have Adobe
Photoshop during the 60s, but two 12-year-old girls made people believe in fairies with photo editing
years prior, so surely NASA could remove the crosshairs to make for better photos. I will be very
interested in the Mythbusters explanation of the picture issues.
As for the deaths of the other Apollo astronauts well, I certainly believe that the government does do
some illicit getting-rid-of troublemakers. Therefore, I can easily concede that, yes, their deaths may not
have been at all accidental. However, I dont know that this is because the moon landing was a hoax.
There are many other things they could have threatened that the government would have seen as
problematic, especially during the space race. Threats to share information about what they were doing
and how they were doing it in a way that the Russians could get it, even so much as talking badly about
the space program could have done it. I dont think the fact that someone wanted these people dead (if
it werent just a freak accident, which seems entirely possible) is at all proof that the landing was faked.
Everything else in here, Ive researched a bit before. I know that the flag was waving, if I remember
correctly, completely because of the way the astronauts were moving them, on top of that, that the
flags were formed in such a way that theyd stick up straight without wind in order to be aesthetically
pleasing. I dont see any reason to think the moon landing was a hoax. Moreover, with the historical
gravity of the space race, how badly everyone wanted to get up there, I cant think that this could stay a
secret. Like some of the experts said, hundreds of people were involved. Somebody else has to have
known, and the government is just not that good at keeping big secrets (afterall, this is when Watergate
came out!). If the Russians had any reason to think that the USA had faked the landing, would they not
have gone out of their way to prove this? I think they certainly would have doing so would have
discredited America enormously. Their astronauts and experts must have had enough reason to think
the USA definitely landed to abandon their missions, rather than land and potentially find no footprints,
no American flags, etc.
Deaths had happened in spacecraft before. The whole world was watching. Even if things seemed to
many to be virtually impossible, I am sure that NASA took every possible precaution and watched
everything they were doing very closely to make sure the mission would be successful and that all would
return from the moon safely. These are not everyday people we are talking about here these are
Americas best scientists. Surely, all of this was thought through in such a way that everyone would
come back, that all pictures would be taken, that everything would go off without any major hitch. I
have no doubt that people could find fault with any amount of proof they were given even if we did go
back to the moon to find the flags and footprints.


Ive now finished the Mythbusters clips on the moon landing and the Philip Plait Bad Astronomy
Apollo essay and feel much the same as I did before: there is no way this thing is a hoax and anyone who
believes so doesnt understand logic (or even how to make a simple Google search). Im glad that the
Mythbusters did test it, however. It seems so logical to most of us that of course we landed on the moon
that I was surprised they even considered it a myth worth busting, but they did, and now it can just be
added to the arsenal of things science can show non-believers.
The reason for the lighting issues in the pictures the parallel shadows, the astronauts being lit even
when the only light source was behind them - were much more scientific than I believed, initially
thinking it was something special NASA did in order to make the photos visible. The Mythbusters
demonstration and several sections of the Plait chapter helped to explain the science behind it mainly,
the reflective surface and the backscatter. Particularly, I was glad we were able to see it in the model
that the Mythbusters made. I do find it interesting that the one real thing I was concerned about the
presence of crosshairs that sometimes appeared to be behind the actual objects was never actually
addressed, however, as I said in my first essay, I dont necessarily have an issue with this. Those easily
could have been edited out by professionals, or any other number of things.
The waving of the flag like there were a breeze didnt concern me either, and I liked watching the
demonstration of that, as well. It seems that when the hoax believers consider the moon, they consider
it simply as not having oxygen or wind, but not in terms of how that actually affects the atmosphere
merely a lack of Earthliness. I didnt think about the lack of air resistance either if I had, I would have
been able to explain the dust the way the Philip Plait essay did, as well.
As far as the unsurvivable radiation and the presence of the Van Allen belts go, Im glad to hear that
the astronauts were put in minimal danger. That said, Id be willing to cut several years off my life in
order to go to the moon, so I wasnt convinced in the first place that it would stop anybody. Of course,
any kind of travel into unexplored areas, be they island countries, the ocean, or deep space, is going to
involve some amount of danger. This is unavoidable, and whole teams work on these things to make
sure that everybody going will be as safe as possible and that everybody going understands the
inherent risks. The radiation was certainly a risk but not an insurmountable one. That said, I am very
interested in the fact that computers on spacecrafts are ten years behind the current (because of the
radiation protection). I remember Windows 2000. Cant imagine getting that thing to do the kinds of
things needed in space! (I understand that that isnt actually the kind of computer they mean, but still.)
So as far as the things that arent answered, we still have the mysterious deaths of some of the
astronauts in the pre-flight trial who spoke out against NASA which I still believe could be a conspiracy
of some sort, but not one that was meant to cover up us not actually going to the moon and the fact
that we dont know whats in Area 51 (which I am willing to bet is far less interesting than anyone
actually thinks). Thats it. While the FOX production and, Im sure, the books of any of the conspiracy
theorists do their best to present everything in a very passionate, convincing way. And it is until you
actually start to think logically.
And, like I mentioned before, Philip Plait ended by bringing up the politics of it all. Had the Soviets any
reason to believe we had faked this during the Cold War; they most certainly would have discovered it
for sure and made it known. That would have been the ultimate victory for them. And yet, their best
people never looked for this evidence, never tried to help out the conspiracy theorists. (You should
know you have a problem when even Russia isnt that crazy.)
So, thats what it comes down to for me it just doesnt make sense. It didnt make sense before, and it
certainly doesnt make sense now, now that I know the actual science behind it. I hope that those who
believe all this are simply believing it out of ignorance, and that eventually they have the good sense to
look some of it up.