Vent: Everyone said the moon landing footage was obviously fake, but I found a 1972 NASA technical manual in a library that changed my mind.

I was deep into the hoax arguments, especially the flag waving and the lighting, until I actually read the Apollo 16 mission report detailing the specific camera rigs and the lunar surface material properties. The manual explained the flag's movement came from the astronauts planting the pole, not wind, and the odd shadows were from the moon's rough terrain and a single, harsh light source. So, if the 'proof' of a fake is so easily explained by the actual engineering, why is it still the go-to evidence for the whole conspiracy?

4 comments

4 Comments

kelly_patel29d ago

Yeah, the flag waving thing always seemed weak. I read that same explanation about the pole moving the fabric.

oliver_stone1529d ago

Totally agree with you @kelly_patel. That pole explanation is the only one that ever made sense to me... because otherwise you need constant wind in a place that has none. They try to say it's from the astronauts moving it, but the flag waves when nobody is even touching it in some shots. It just seems like a basic thing they didn't think people would question too hard.

charles_jackson6829d ago

Wait, they really said it's from the astronauts moving it? But you can see it moving after they step away... that doesn't add up at all. It's such a weird detail to get wrong.

rowan_reed686d ago

My buddy’s kid asked about that at the science museum.