Bingowings said:
The evidence seems to point rather conclusively towards men landing on the moon but that doesn't mean there isn't more to the story than what we know or that all that evidence is 100% of the truth.
It just means from the evidence we have it seems more probable that they did and seems highly improbable that the landings were 100% faked.
I feel like giving the faked landing theories even 1% credit is far too much. There is no reason to believe we didn't land on the moon. All the "evidence" against it are crackpot misunderstandings of physics.
An example is the movement of moon dust. Many people have cited the odd way in which moon dust is shot into the air by the rovers wheels and the rapid manner in which it falls to the ground is way too fast for a low gravity environment. This is one of the first things moon conspiracy theorist will throw at you, and exhibits a misunderstanding a physics. The moon has no atmosphere, no air, so there is nothing else to impede or slow the fall of the dirt other than the lower gravity. The dirt in recordings of the rovers is falling slower than it would on earth, and no faster than other objects are seen to fall on the moon, but it is falling in a perfect uniform pattern and making perfect arcs from the wheel to the ground, which is exactly what we'd expect to find with a lack of atmosphere.
Another big thing credited as major evidence of a hoax is the flag blowing in the wind. The flags' poles had just a single wire jutting out along the top making the flag stand straight out, the bottom (which is the part we see swaying in videos) is unsupported. Again, no atmosphere on the moon means no wind, but it also means lack of atmospheric friction. Do we suppose if we had something like a car antenna on the moon, and we twanged it, it would simple go straight back to its normal position instead of violently flying back and forth like it would on earth? No, lack of atmospheric friction means it would go on flipping back and forth longer.
This is clearly what we are seeing with the flag. The astronauts pound it into the ground, and the vibrations continue to sway the unsupported bottom of the flag for a while. Couple this with lower gravitational pull encouraging the flag to stop swaying. Again, this is exactly what we should expect to see in a law gravity no atmosphere environment. It is evidence for that footage actually being taken on the moon, not evidence against it!
The angles of the shadows is another one I really like. Once in college I had the pleasure of sitting next to a moon landing conspiracy believer during lunch in the school cafeteria. His favorite piece of evidence was the way the shadows go in different directions in the moon footage videos, he explained that would be impossible with the sun being the only light source. All shadows would be pointing the same direction, but since it was a studio with many different light sources, the shadows crossed and went all over the place. It was sometime shortly after noon, on a very bright and sunny day, and when we stepped out of the cafeteria building and onto campus I was delighted to be able to point how the shadows around us crossed and went all over the place, even though the sun was the one light source casting the shadows.
You can pick out every major piece of evidence for a moon landing hoax, apply a bit of reality to it, and find it is nothing out of what we should be expected.
Now we've resorted to The Shining for proof of a moon landing hoax? That is very silly, if Kubrick really did it, why would he try to rat himself out? Okay, so maybe he wanted us to know the truth, but was sworn to secrecy by the government; don't you think someone involved in the conspiracy would have seen the movie, noticed all the Apollo 11 stuff, and caught on? It is much more reasonable to assume Kubrick was simply making some amusing references.
