I used to think the moon landing stuff was just silly, but a friend in Tucson showed me some old NASA budget reports.

He pointed out a line item for 'optical simulation' from 1969 that was way bigger than expected, which made me actually look into the counter-arguments for the first time. Now I can't just dismiss the whole idea out of hand, even though I still think we probably went. What's the one piece of evidence that made you stop and really think about a theory you used to laugh at?

3 comments

3 Comments

julia54926d ago

Check out the Van Allen radiation belts. I always heard they were a total deal breaker for human travel. Then I saw a video where a physicist explained how the Apollo path avoided the worst parts and the short trip time limited exposure. It's not proof we faked it, but it made me realize I had just accepted the "impossible radiation" talking point without actually looking at the science. What specific thing in those budget reports got your friend so worked up?

bettyroberts26d ago

Yeah, my cousin was the same way about the belts until he saw that NASA chart showing the transit time was under two hours. Julia549, your friend probably saw the line item for the film studio rentals, that one always gets people going.

jennifer20425d ago

What exactly was the "optical simulation" for, and how much was it? @julia549, that film studio rental line is wild, but a huge budget item for a specific effect seems like a bigger red flag.