10

6 comments

[–] pembo210 8 points (+8|-0) Edited

I've seen a bunch of stuff on this trying to prove one side or the other. From the pictures to moon rocks possibly being fake. For me though, it's the radio evidence.

The only way it could be faked, is if Russia allowed it for some bigger reason. Back then, you could point a directional antennae at the moon or towards orbiting craft and listen in. Russia would have been able to tell right away if the conversations or the live broadcast was actually coming from the moon. NASA also had to use a large facility in Australia to relay messages that they received while they were pointed towards the moon and the US was facing away. So lots of people would have noticed no radio signal or a funky one that was relayed. They had the best radio people in the world running those stations.

[–] PhunkyPlatypus 3 points (+3|-0)

I feel like the Russian angle is the best evidence to support the legitimacy of the moon landings. Particularly during that period of time, they would have used every opportunity to besmirched the american image. I simply can't fathom any reason (excluding alien moon base) on why they would allow us to perform this charade without calling us out. Even if they were saving it for a trump card later on down the road, I feel like that opportunity would have arisen by now. Yet nothing.

[–] xyzzy 2 points (+2|-0)

I don't think so. But I'm still eager to see the footage of the planned missions revisiting the historic landing sites.

[–] [Deleted] 0 points (+0|-0) Edited

If you do your research on youtube you will discover the TRUTH that Stanley Kubric faked the moon landings. If you superimpose 2001 over The Shining there is a clear message.