Here we go!
We have a standard disclaimer informing us that the following is conjecture, and that it’s not the only possible interpretation. A montage of moon imagery and sound bites from the quacks.
“You be the judge! Conspiracy Theory: Did we land on the moon?” Well, let’s find out!
A brief history of the moon landing, permeated by dumb rhetorical questions. The suspense is killing me!
We’re about to learn about “inconsistencies” in the film.
The stars! Where are the stars! Anyone who has taken a photograph at night will notice that the stars generally don’t show up. Next.
The flag is waving! No it’s not, it’s unfurling from its folded state due to gravity. This is amazingly obvious. Just look!
The theory now is that Apollo 11 simply orbited the earth for eight days, while the moon landing footage (pre-recorded, I guess) was being broadcast. This doesn’t explain how radio observatories in other countries, like Australia, saw the signals coming from the moon. Oh, they were part of the conspiracy too!
Now Area 51 is involved.
There are craters at Area 51. These craters are obviously used to fake the moon landing. Of course, the earth has more craters than the moon does, but most of them have been covered by life. One crater in the Nevada desert looks similar to one on the moon. One out of millions. Who woulda thunk it? They then showed an austonaut, alledgedly on the moon, describing the craters as “similar to the deserts in the southwestern United States.”
You’d think they would have deleted that from the script.
First commercial break. There have been no opinions from the rational world yet. The lone gunmen have their own show now. Neat.
There is a lack of engine noise on the official NASA footage of the LEM landing. I wonder if this has to do with the fact that they’re in SPACE. The inside of the LEM (CMIIW) is a vacuum. There would be no sound.
The LEM was very difficult to control on earth. I wonder if this has to do with the earth’s gavity being six times stronger, and having air. They make it sound like no changes were made to the LEM after the initial failures.
Finally, a NASA spokesman. They’re not giving him much time.
There is no blast crater where the LEM took off. NASA dude says the ammount of thrust required wouldn’t cause one.
There is no visible exhaust coming out of the LEM when it took off. My understanding of rockets tells me that there shouldn’t be, unless there is liquid water around to condense on the cooling gas. I could be wrong here, though.
Second commercial break… We’ve had some comments from rational people, but they are not given anywhere near enough time to counter the evidence from the whackos. Disapointing.
Why are the video signals so grainy? It’s obviously fake. Or maybe it’s because they were transmitting a signal from a poor quality camera several thousand miles to a radio telescope, where it is amplified rediculously, and broadcast to the world.
When doubling the speed of the film, it appears the astroauts are running in earth gravity. (Actually, it doesn’t, but whatever.) This doesn’t take into account the several hundred pounds of gear on the 'nauts back, and a rather poor understanding of how physics works.
How were thousands of pictures taken with such perfect clarity and perfect framing? Actually, there are several thousand pictures with terrible framing, but the only ones released as PR were the ones that lookied good.
Now we’re getting into the whole shaddow argument. The shadows are not parallell! Oh no! How are thing in the shadow still visible? Because light also reflects off the surface of the moon, twits. Why is a shot of an astronaut in front of the sun not in sillhouette? Any tool who has taken a photo class or understands basic optics knows why this is possible.
A camera crosshair is behind some items in the photos. All items that appear to be “in front” of the crosshairs are bright white. Anyone who has developed film can see that these are highlight areas and are overexposed. There’s no way a tiny black crosshair would show up on top of an overexposed highlight.
The NASA people have been given three soundbites in this act. Any actual explanations they give have been edited out. They are allowed to dismiss the quack’s claims, but not offer evidence of their own.
Third commercial break.
Now we’re moving away from science, and we’re into Mysterioud Deaths, the cornerstone of all conspiracy theories.
Was Appolo 1 an accident?!
This doesn’t even have anything to do with the moon landing itself. Sheesh. Must be desperate for content. Sure is an expensive way to go about offing someone. How much do those rockets cost again?
Ten astronauts die in a few years in freak accidents. The fact that they’re doing the most dangerous job in the world has nothing to do with this.
Fourth commercial break.
They’re talking about how the Van Allen belts would have killed the astronauts. I don’t know anything about this topic, unfortunately.
A USSR cosmonaut says the Soviet space program “was not sure” how the radiation would affect the cosmonauts. This constitutes “proof” that the radiation was obviously deadly. Never mind that we have been measuring this stuff for years before we sent people up there.
Fifth commercial break.
Time for the conclusion. Rhetorical question time. More sound bites. Is there any way to put this controversey to rest? Why can’t we see all the LEMs and American Flags on the lunar surface? Because no telescope has good enough optics, that’s why.
The question will always remain, did we land on the moon?
Bah. I missed Battlebots for this?!?!
My local Fox affiliate is going to interview an astronaut now. Maybe there will be vindication.