Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Click to View Content

kljasdkagfaskfasfdoh wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote Yes we did.

There are reflectors on the Moon used to measure the distance between the Earth and Moon.
They were put there during the Apollo 11 mission and can be - and are - seen and used by amateur astronomers all over the world.
It's called the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Irrefutable proof that we did land on the Moon, unless those reflectors got up there in some other way.

there are theories of the moon being a giant hologram printed into the sky, i'm not that crazy though. And have you seen photos where the shadows are coming from multiple directions, how? As well could the reflectors have been sent by the rocket they claimed the astronauts were in? and that rocket went to the moon and dropped the reflectors? And the astronauts were in a studio with fake props of the reflectors?

Even on Earth the bumps and hills in a picture affect which directions the shadows fall in.
Not to mention that the lunar lander was covered with reflective plates.
I would simply say that the pictures of the astronauts on the Moon prove that astronauts were on the Moon.

But if you've already said that NASA were capable of creating a rocket and lander which could get to the Moon and back, why couldn't they also create suits capable of sustaining the lives of the astronauts for the same amount of time?

i don't think they were capable of making a rocket, maybe it was a miniature rocket and moon and they secretly got a special effects team to do their job. Also, there is a picture of of an astronaut and the reflection in the helmet shows a piece of rope that is not necessary to be there, were the astronauts being pulled up by rope/thin string to create the low gravity effect?

If you're talking about this picture, it was taken during the Apollo 12 mission, not the Apollo 11 mission.

Click to View Content

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

But even if it was taken during the Apollo 11 mission, do you not think that the special effects team would have painstakingly analyzed every single photo for any flaws?

I don't believe we've ever landed on the Moon, not humans anyway. And special effect teams could have missed that object (rope) and i don't think they could brush something away like we can now on photo shop. Also why do we need suits and not just an oxygen mask/tank, why cant we reveal skin outside of our atmosphere?

There is no air pressure in space, and space is also extremely cold. They would 'fizz' to death without suits on to regulate their temperature and pressure.
They could have missed it, yes, but that doesn't prove that they did.
As far as I'm aware the common response to that picture is that it's an exposure blur.

It does look like a ceiling fan, it could've been used to make the flag look wavy, and what about the rock that was labelled 'c'? stage props?

The flag had a wire running through it to keep it in a wavy looking position. If it was a real flag it would have simply flopped around next to the pole and wouldn't have looked very good on TV. The wire kept it in the position of a waving flag on Earth.
When Neil first pushed the pole into the ground the kinetic energy in the bar would have also caused the flag to wave back and forth, but it did eventually stop as that energy dissipated.

The 'C' rock can be attributed to Pareidolia, a psychological effect in which we see patterns where there are none. It's like when we look at clouds and see the outlines of boots, countries, animals, etc.
This could also explain why people see a ceiling fan, microphone, or rope in the visor blur.

Not to mention that movie studios don't actually label their prop pieces specifically because the label might be seen if the director chooses to film from a different angle.

Movies aren't as advanced as they are today, we don't even need to label props anymore (on set) and yes you need a wire (or something strong enough) to hold up a flag on Earth because the gravity would make the flag flop down, and so this proves the moon landings fake because they needed a wire of some sort to keep the flag up because if on the moon the flag wouldn't need support and the gravity on the moon wouldn't be strong enough to pull down the flag, so if they're in a studio then they will need to hold the flag up, and the flag would move because of vibrations when hitting it into the hole fitted for the flag.

ahh yea the gravity would be strong enough to pull the flag down. The wire is so they could get a good shpt. Wouldn't look very good if all you could see was a flopped down flag. There is obviously no way to change your mind on this short of taking you to the moon. We use the "mirrors" to see the exact distance how is that not proof enough we have been?

What proof do you need? at the end of the day your only counter argument is that it is all fake and studio work. They didn't have the camera tech back then to fake it. I suggest watching "moon fake not" on youtube. Pretty good.

there were film producers who created effects of space etc. and only a few at the time, it wouldn't be hard to set up a studio of the moon landing. and what about there being no stars?(read my first two replies) and why would someone want to play golf on the moon, priorities? as well they shut down all of the Apollo mission files? why? to show no evidence of the moon landings being fake?

The lack of stars is attributable to to the light exposure capabilities of the cameras being used.
Basically, the cameras weren't good enough to capture the stars.
The light from the Sun bouncing off the surface of the Moon was so bright that it 'washed out' the light from the stars. This happens on Earth too, but it's not as strong here because our atmosphere filters most of the ultraviolet rays out of the light before it hits the planet's surface.
It's why you can see stars better at some points on Earth compared to others, places without a lot of artificial light are the worst places to see stars.

Astronaut Alan Shepard took a golf ball with him and took a 2 minute break from setting up equipment to hit it. It wasn't that big of a deal.

As far as I can tell they haven't shut down the Apollo mission files.
All of the information on what occurred, the pictures taken, audio logs, etc. are all out there on the internet to find.

Can you link me to an article or something proving that the files are locked? I can't seem to find any.

there were a few visible stars on the moon landing photos, and not to say that our atmosphere is so polluted and has so many gases etc. to block out stars and other things visible in the sky, so the moon should be one of the best places we now to date to see stars as clear in the sky as they can be.

I can see no visible stars in any of the moon landing photos from Apollo 11.
Stars aren't as visible on the Moon because the Moon's surface is so reflective.
It creates its own artificial light, just like if you were to stand in the middle of Las Vegas at night you wouldn't be able to see any stars, but if you were to stand in the middle of the desert you would see a lot.

Click to View Content

OK. So the 5 proofs:

5. Flag waves - We've already addressed that.
4. Sped up footage looks like it was recorded on Earth - This is easy to explain, they were hopping. You can hop on Earth and you would hop faster on Earth, so of course sped up footage of them hopping on the Moon would look like it was recorded on Earth. They were hopping about the same height that you would be able to on Earth because it let them get around more quickly and safely. Jumping extremely high would have been dangerous.
3. No visible stars - We've already addressed that.
2. Lander not leaving large depressions on the ground - The weight of the lander was distributed evenly through the lander's footpads. Not to mention that the lander didn't move once it had landed, so they wouldn't have taken any pictures of its 'footprints' despite them being there. You can't see your own footprint until you lift your foot out of it.
1. Rocks from the Moon are identical to rocks on Earth - Those rocks are called Lunar Meteorites. Only 30 have ever been found on Earth, so it's not like they are all over the place. They happen when a meteor hits the Moon which in turn blasts chunks of the Moon towards Earth.

the flag waves are happening when they are placing it down as if there is wind or if wind has been created which cannot happen. and stars should be visible from the moon as there is no atmosphere with gases to block them, and it doesn't matter if the moon has a shiny reflective surface, and as well an astronaut has two shadows when there is one sun not two.

They were moving the flag when it was being placed, that causes it to have a waving effect.
The Moon's reflective surface absolutely matters.
You're trying to debate the fact that more light closer to you makes it harder to see the light further away from you?
This page explains the science behind it and the pictures.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

I've already given a reason why there would be two shadows, the lander was covered with reflective panels to cope with the heat upon re-entering the Earth's atmosphere.

the flag was moving at the speed as if it had been hit by a wind source/effect. And yes if a light source is closer to you of course other objects that are light will be harder to see, take a normal house light for example, if you stare at it (with your eyes or a camera up quite close) then you will find it harder to see other bright objects in the sky/or in the distance. but with the moon there isn't a light source bright enough to block out the visibility of the stars.

Considering wind speed can be anything from a breeze to a hurricane, I can't disagree with you there.
I can disagree with the logic of conflating the movements of a man trying to put a flag into the ground on the Moon with that flag being hit by wind though.

The Moon itself, it's surface, reflects the light from the Sun with much more intensity than Earth does.

so how come we can just see darkness in the distance in all directions from the moon, say for instance you weren't looking where the light was reflecting (dark side of the moon or simply facing away from the light) and how can we not see stars then?

If you weren't looking where the light was reflecting? If the light is reflecting off the ground beneath your feet for hundreds of miles in every direction, you can't be looking somewhere where it isn't reflecting because it is reflecting everywhere around you.

The astronauts said that only if they stood in the shadow of the lander could they see the very brightest stars.

On the dark side of the Moon you would be able to see the stars, but they didn't go to the dark side of the Moon.

so why haven't we been there since 1972 and why wouldn't we try to inhabit people there first and why would they go for Mars?

There is no reason to go back to the Moon now, and it costs a lot.
I answered your second question in my first post on this topic.

it doesn't matter why would we go for mars first, logically you would inhabit people on the moon first because it costs less and isn't as far, and if they've already been to the moon like they say they have, then they know that they could get there for sure, so why would they risk going to mars when they don't even know for definite if they can get there or not.

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Click to View Content

kljasdkagfaskfasfdoh wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote Yes we did.

There are reflectors on the Moon used to measure the distance between the Earth and Moon.
They were put there during the Apollo 11 mission and can be - and are - seen and used by amateur astronomers all over the world.
It's called the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Irrefutable proof that we did land on the Moon, unless those reflectors got up there in some other way.

there are theories of the moon being a giant hologram printed into the sky, i'm not that crazy though. And have you seen photos where the shadows are coming from multiple directions, how? As well could the reflectors have been sent by the rocket they claimed the astronauts were in? and that rocket went to the moon and dropped the reflectors? And the astronauts were in a studio with fake props of the reflectors?

Even on Earth the bumps and hills in a picture affect which directions the shadows fall in.
Not to mention that the lunar lander was covered with reflective plates.
I would simply say that the pictures of the astronauts on the Moon prove that astronauts were on the Moon.

But if you've already said that NASA were capable of creating a rocket and lander which could get to the Moon and back, why couldn't they also create suits capable of sustaining the lives of the astronauts for the same amount of time?

i don't think they were capable of making a rocket, maybe it was a miniature rocket and moon and they secretly got a special effects team to do their job. Also, there is a picture of of an astronaut and the reflection in the helmet shows a piece of rope that is not necessary to be there, were the astronauts being pulled up by rope/thin string to create the low gravity effect?

If you're talking about this picture, it was taken during the Apollo 12 mission, not the Apollo 11 mission.

Click to View Content

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

But even if it was taken during the Apollo 11 mission, do you not think that the special effects team would have painstakingly analyzed every single photo for any flaws?

I don't believe we've ever landed on the Moon, not humans anyway. And special effect teams could have missed that object (rope) and i don't think they could brush something away like we can now on photo shop. Also why do we need suits and not just an oxygen mask/tank, why cant we reveal skin outside of our atmosphere?

There is no air pressure in space, and space is also extremely cold. They would 'fizz' to death without suits on to regulate their temperature and pressure.
They could have missed it, yes, but that doesn't prove that they did.
As far as I'm aware the common response to that picture is that it's an exposure blur.

It does look like a ceiling fan, it could've been used to make the flag look wavy, and what about the rock that was labelled 'c'? stage props?

The flag had a wire running through it to keep it in a wavy looking position. If it was a real flag it would have simply flopped around next to the pole and wouldn't have looked very good on TV. The wire kept it in the position of a waving flag on Earth.
When Neil first pushed the pole into the ground the kinetic energy in the bar would have also caused the flag to wave back and forth, but it did eventually stop as that energy dissipated.

The 'C' rock can be attributed to Pareidolia, a psychological effect in which we see patterns where there are none. It's like when we look at clouds and see the outlines of boots, countries, animals, etc.
This could also explain why people see a ceiling fan, microphone, or rope in the visor blur.

Not to mention that movie studios don't actually label their prop pieces specifically because the label might be seen if the director chooses to film from a different angle.

Movies aren't as advanced as they are today, we don't even need to label props anymore (on set) and yes you need a wire (or something strong enough) to hold up a flag on Earth because the gravity would make the flag flop down, and so this proves the moon landings fake because they needed a wire of some sort to keep the flag up because if on the moon the flag wouldn't need support and the gravity on the moon wouldn't be strong enough to pull down the flag, so if they're in a studio then they will need to hold the flag up, and the flag would move because of vibrations when hitting it into the hole fitted for the flag.

ahh yea the gravity would be strong enough to pull the flag down. The wire is so they could get a good shpt. Wouldn't look very good if all you could see was a flopped down flag. There is obviously no way to change your mind on this short of taking you to the moon. We use the "mirrors" to see the exact distance how is that not proof enough we have been?

What proof do you need? at the end of the day your only counter argument is that it is all fake and studio work. They didn't have the camera tech back then to fake it. I suggest watching "moon fake not" on youtube. Pretty good.

there were film producers who created effects of space etc. and only a few at the time, it wouldn't be hard to set up a studio of the moon landing. and what about there being no stars?(read my first two replies) and why would someone want to play golf on the moon, priorities? as well they shut down all of the Apollo mission files? why? to show no evidence of the moon landings being fake?

The lack of stars is attributable to to the light exposure capabilities of the cameras being used.
Basically, the cameras weren't good enough to capture the stars.
The light from the Sun bouncing off the surface of the Moon was so bright that it 'washed out' the light from the stars. This happens on Earth too, but it's not as strong here because our atmosphere filters most of the ultraviolet rays out of the light before it hits the planet's surface.
It's why you can see stars better at some points on Earth compared to others, places without a lot of artificial light are the worst places to see stars.

Astronaut Alan Shepard took a golf ball with him and took a 2 minute break from setting up equipment to hit it. It wasn't that big of a deal.

As far as I can tell they haven't shut down the Apollo mission files.
All of the information on what occurred, the pictures taken, audio logs, etc. are all out there on the internet to find.

Can you link me to an article or something proving that the files are locked? I can't seem to find any.

there were a few visible stars on the moon landing photos, and not to say that our atmosphere is so polluted and has so many gases etc. to block out stars and other things visible in the sky, so the moon should be one of the best places we now to date to see stars as clear in the sky as they can be.

I can see no visible stars in any of the moon landing photos from Apollo 11.
Stars aren't as visible on the Moon because the Moon's surface is so reflective.
It creates its own artificial light, just like if you were to stand in the middle of Las Vegas at night you wouldn't be able to see any stars, but if you were to stand in the middle of the desert you would see a lot.

Click to View Content

OK. So the 5 proofs:

5. Flag waves - We've already addressed that.
4. Sped up footage looks like it was recorded on Earth - This is easy to explain, they were hopping. You can hop on Earth and you would hop faster on Earth, so of course sped up footage of them hopping on the Moon would look like it was recorded on Earth. They were hopping about the same height that you would be able to on Earth because it let them get around more quickly and safely. Jumping extremely high would have been dangerous.
3. No visible stars - We've already addressed that.
2. Lander not leaving large depressions on the ground - The weight of the lander was distributed evenly through the lander's footpads. Not to mention that the lander didn't move once it had landed, so they wouldn't have taken any pictures of its 'footprints' despite them being there. You can't see your own footprint until you lift your foot out of it.
1. Rocks from the Moon are identical to rocks on Earth - Those rocks are called Lunar Meteorites. Only 30 have ever been found on Earth, so it's not like they are all over the place. They happen when a meteor hits the Moon which in turn blasts chunks of the Moon towards Earth.

the flag waves are happening when they are placing it down as if there is wind or if wind has been created which cannot happen. and stars should be visible from the moon as there is no atmosphere with gases to block them, and it doesn't matter if the moon has a shiny reflective surface, and as well an astronaut has two shadows when there is one sun not two.

They were moving the flag when it was being placed, that causes it to have a waving effect.
The Moon's reflective surface absolutely matters.
You're trying to debate the fact that more light closer to you makes it harder to see the light further away from you?
This page explains the science behind it and the pictures.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

I've already given a reason why there would be two shadows, the lander was covered with reflective panels to cope with the heat upon re-entering the Earth's atmosphere.

the flag was moving at the speed as if it had been hit by a wind source/effect. And yes if a light source is closer to you of course other objects that are light will be harder to see, take a normal house light for example, if you stare at it (with your eyes or a camera up quite close) then you will find it harder to see other bright objects in the sky/or in the distance. but with the moon there isn't a light source bright enough to block out the visibility of the stars.

Considering wind speed can be anything from a breeze to a hurricane, I can't disagree with you there.
I can disagree with the logic of conflating the movements of a man trying to put a flag into the ground on the Moon with that flag being hit by wind though.

The Moon itself, it's surface, reflects the light from the Sun with much more intensity than Earth does.

so how come we can just see darkness in the distance in all directions from the moon, say for instance you weren't looking where the light was reflecting (dark side of the moon or simply facing away from the light) and how can we not see stars then?

If you weren't looking where the light was reflecting? If the light is reflecting off the ground beneath your feet for hundreds of miles in every direction, you can't be looking somewhere where it isn't reflecting because it is reflecting everywhere around you.

The astronauts said that only if they stood in the shadow of the lander could they see the very brightest stars.

On the dark side of the Moon you would be able to see the stars, but they didn't go to the dark side of the Moon.

so why haven't we been there since 1972 and why wouldn't we try to inhabit people there first and why would they go for Mars?

There is no reason to go back to the Moon now, and it costs a lot.
I answered your second question in my first post on this topic.

it doesn't matter why would we go for mars first, logically you would inhabit people on the moon first because it costs less and isn't as far, and if they've already been to the moon like they say they have, then they know that they could get there for sure, so why would they risk going to mars when they don't even know for definite if they can get there or not.

That's the point though, we can't inhabit the Moon.
It's too different and hostile. We would spend billions to get to the Moon and have people there live in bubbles made to simulate the Earth using none of the Moon's natural features to help them. There is no point.

It's like playing football in your overgrown front garden when you have a well mown pitch right across the street.
You have to travel further and you might get hit by a car, but it's going to be better in the long run.

NASA doesn't have bottomless pockets. They need to choose wisely where they spend their money. Humans need to find another planet to live on which is sustainable for a long period of time because this one is dying. Mars is the closest planet to us in both distance and environment.
They would send people to the Moon, only to find out that we can't live there long term and that we need to go for Mars, which they already know. It would be a complete waste of time, money and effort.

Yes of course we did, it's been proven multiple times.

Why don't we go there again? BECAUSE IT COSTS A LOT OF BLOODY MONEY

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Click to View Content

kljasdkagfaskfasfdoh wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote Yes we did.

There are reflectors on the Moon used to measure the distance between the Earth and Moon.
They were put there during the Apollo 11 mission and can be - and are - seen and used by amateur astronomers all over the world.
It's called the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Irrefutable proof that we did land on the Moon, unless those reflectors got up there in some other way.

there are theories of the moon being a giant hologram printed into the sky, i'm not that crazy though. And have you seen photos where the shadows are coming from multiple directions, how? As well could the reflectors have been sent by the rocket they claimed the astronauts were in? and that rocket went to the moon and dropped the reflectors? And the astronauts were in a studio with fake props of the reflectors?

Even on Earth the bumps and hills in a picture affect which directions the shadows fall in.
Not to mention that the lunar lander was covered with reflective plates.
I would simply say that the pictures of the astronauts on the Moon prove that astronauts were on the Moon.

But if you've already said that NASA were capable of creating a rocket and lander which could get to the Moon and back, why couldn't they also create suits capable of sustaining the lives of the astronauts for the same amount of time?

i don't think they were capable of making a rocket, maybe it was a miniature rocket and moon and they secretly got a special effects team to do their job. Also, there is a picture of of an astronaut and the reflection in the helmet shows a piece of rope that is not necessary to be there, were the astronauts being pulled up by rope/thin string to create the low gravity effect?

If you're talking about this picture, it was taken during the Apollo 12 mission, not the Apollo 11 mission.

Click to View Content

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

But even if it was taken during the Apollo 11 mission, do you not think that the special effects team would have painstakingly analyzed every single photo for any flaws?

I don't believe we've ever landed on the Moon, not humans anyway. And special effect teams could have missed that object (rope) and i don't think they could brush something away like we can now on photo shop. Also why do we need suits and not just an oxygen mask/tank, why cant we reveal skin outside of our atmosphere?

There is no air pressure in space, and space is also extremely cold. They would 'fizz' to death without suits on to regulate their temperature and pressure.
They could have missed it, yes, but that doesn't prove that they did.
As far as I'm aware the common response to that picture is that it's an exposure blur.

It does look like a ceiling fan, it could've been used to make the flag look wavy, and what about the rock that was labelled 'c'? stage props?

The flag had a wire running through it to keep it in a wavy looking position. If it was a real flag it would have simply flopped around next to the pole and wouldn't have looked very good on TV. The wire kept it in the position of a waving flag on Earth.
When Neil first pushed the pole into the ground the kinetic energy in the bar would have also caused the flag to wave back and forth, but it did eventually stop as that energy dissipated.

The 'C' rock can be attributed to Pareidolia, a psychological effect in which we see patterns where there are none. It's like when we look at clouds and see the outlines of boots, countries, animals, etc.
This could also explain why people see a ceiling fan, microphone, or rope in the visor blur.

Not to mention that movie studios don't actually label their prop pieces specifically because the label might be seen if the director chooses to film from a different angle.

Movies aren't as advanced as they are today, we don't even need to label props anymore (on set) and yes you need a wire (or something strong enough) to hold up a flag on Earth because the gravity would make the flag flop down, and so this proves the moon landings fake because they needed a wire of some sort to keep the flag up because if on the moon the flag wouldn't need support and the gravity on the moon wouldn't be strong enough to pull down the flag, so if they're in a studio then they will need to hold the flag up, and the flag would move because of vibrations when hitting it into the hole fitted for the flag.

ahh yea the gravity would be strong enough to pull the flag down. The wire is so they could get a good shpt. Wouldn't look very good if all you could see was a flopped down flag. There is obviously no way to change your mind on this short of taking you to the moon. We use the "mirrors" to see the exact distance how is that not proof enough we have been?

What proof do you need? at the end of the day your only counter argument is that it is all fake and studio work. They didn't have the camera tech back then to fake it. I suggest watching "moon fake not" on youtube. Pretty good.

there were film producers who created effects of space etc. and only a few at the time, it wouldn't be hard to set up a studio of the moon landing. and what about there being no stars?(read my first two replies) and why would someone want to play golf on the moon, priorities? as well they shut down all of the Apollo mission files? why? to show no evidence of the moon landings being fake?

The lack of stars is attributable to to the light exposure capabilities of the cameras being used.
Basically, the cameras weren't good enough to capture the stars.
The light from the Sun bouncing off the surface of the Moon was so bright that it 'washed out' the light from the stars. This happens on Earth too, but it's not as strong here because our atmosphere filters most of the ultraviolet rays out of the light before it hits the planet's surface.
It's why you can see stars better at some points on Earth compared to others, places without a lot of artificial light are the worst places to see stars.

Astronaut Alan Shepard took a golf ball with him and took a 2 minute break from setting up equipment to hit it. It wasn't that big of a deal.

As far as I can tell they haven't shut down the Apollo mission files.
All of the information on what occurred, the pictures taken, audio logs, etc. are all out there on the internet to find.

Can you link me to an article or something proving that the files are locked? I can't seem to find any.

there were a few visible stars on the moon landing photos, and not to say that our atmosphere is so polluted and has so many gases etc. to block out stars and other things visible in the sky, so the moon should be one of the best places we now to date to see stars as clear in the sky as they can be.

I can see no visible stars in any of the moon landing photos from Apollo 11.
Stars aren't as visible on the Moon because the Moon's surface is so reflective.
It creates its own artificial light, just like if you were to stand in the middle of Las Vegas at night you wouldn't be able to see any stars, but if you were to stand in the middle of the desert you would see a lot.

Click to View Content

OK. So the 5 proofs:

5. Flag waves - We've already addressed that.
4. Sped up footage looks like it was recorded on Earth - This is easy to explain, they were hopping. You can hop on Earth and you would hop faster on Earth, so of course sped up footage of them hopping on the Moon would look like it was recorded on Earth. They were hopping about the same height that you would be able to on Earth because it let them get around more quickly and safely. Jumping extremely high would have been dangerous.
3. No visible stars - We've already addressed that.
2. Lander not leaving large depressions on the ground - The weight of the lander was distributed evenly through the lander's footpads. Not to mention that the lander didn't move once it had landed, so they wouldn't have taken any pictures of its 'footprints' despite them being there. You can't see your own footprint until you lift your foot out of it.
1. Rocks from the Moon are identical to rocks on Earth - Those rocks are called Lunar Meteorites. Only 30 have ever been found on Earth, so it's not like they are all over the place. They happen when a meteor hits the Moon which in turn blasts chunks of the Moon towards Earth.

the flag waves are happening when they are placing it down as if there is wind or if wind has been created which cannot happen. and stars should be visible from the moon as there is no atmosphere with gases to block them, and it doesn't matter if the moon has a shiny reflective surface, and as well an astronaut has two shadows when there is one sun not two.

They were moving the flag when it was being placed, that causes it to have a waving effect.
The Moon's reflective surface absolutely matters.
You're trying to debate the fact that more light closer to you makes it harder to see the light further away from you?
This page explains the science behind it and the pictures.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

I've already given a reason why there would be two shadows, the lander was covered with reflective panels to cope with the heat upon re-entering the Earth's atmosphere.

the flag was moving at the speed as if it had been hit by a wind source/effect. And yes if a light source is closer to you of course other objects that are light will be harder to see, take a normal house light for example, if you stare at it (with your eyes or a camera up quite close) then you will find it harder to see other bright objects in the sky/or in the distance. but with the moon there isn't a light source bright enough to block out the visibility of the stars.

Considering wind speed can be anything from a breeze to a hurricane, I can't disagree with you there.
I can disagree with the logic of conflating the movements of a man trying to put a flag into the ground on the Moon with that flag being hit by wind though.

The Moon itself, it's surface, reflects the light from the Sun with much more intensity than Earth does.

so how come we can just see darkness in the distance in all directions from the moon, say for instance you weren't looking where the light was reflecting (dark side of the moon or simply facing away from the light) and how can we not see stars then?

If you weren't looking where the light was reflecting? If the light is reflecting off the ground beneath your feet for hundreds of miles in every direction, you can't be looking somewhere where it isn't reflecting because it is reflecting everywhere around you.

The astronauts said that only if they stood in the shadow of the lander could they see the very brightest stars.

On the dark side of the Moon you would be able to see the stars, but they didn't go to the dark side of the Moon.

so why haven't we been there since 1972 and why wouldn't we try to inhabit people there first and why would they go for Mars?

There is no reason to go back to the Moon now, and it costs a lot.
I answered your second question in my first post on this topic.

it doesn't matter why would we go for mars first, logically you would inhabit people on the moon first because it costs less and isn't as far, and if they've already been to the moon like they say they have, then they know that they could get there for sure, so why would they risk going to mars when they don't even know for definite if they can get there or not.

That's the point though, we can't inhabit the Moon.
It's too different and hostile. We would spend billions to get to the Moon and have people there live in bubbles made to simulate the Earth using none of the Moon's natural features to help them. There is no point.

It's like playing football in your overgrown front garden when you have a well mown pitch right across the street.
You have to travel further and you might get hit by a car, but it's going to be better in the long run.

NASA doesn't have bottomless pockets. They need to choose wisely where they spend their money. Humans need to find another planet to live on which is sustainable for a long period of time because this one is dying. Mars is the closest planet to us in both distance and environment.
They would send people to the Moon, only to find out that we can't live there long term and that we need to go for Mars, which they already know. It would be a complete waste of time, money and effort.

well it doesn't matter if you're living in bubbles does it? logically you would start easy and work your way up, you wouldn't do something that is risky, especially when it costs lots of money.

ZTG wrote Yes of course we did, it's been proven multiple times.

So prove to me that they landed on the moon, you probably can't.

TaDeDraGz wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Click to View Content

kljasdkagfaskfasfdoh wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote Yes we did.

There are reflectors on the Moon used to measure the distance between the Earth and Moon.
They were put there during the Apollo 11 mission and can be - and are - seen and used by amateur astronomers all over the world.
It's called the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Irrefutable proof that we did land on the Moon, unless those reflectors got up there in some other way.

there are theories of the moon being a giant hologram printed into the sky, i'm not that crazy though. And have you seen photos where the shadows are coming from multiple directions, how? As well could the reflectors have been sent by the rocket they claimed the astronauts were in? and that rocket went to the moon and dropped the reflectors? And the astronauts were in a studio with fake props of the reflectors?

Even on Earth the bumps and hills in a picture affect which directions the shadows fall in.
Not to mention that the lunar lander was covered with reflective plates.
I would simply say that the pictures of the astronauts on the Moon prove that astronauts were on the Moon.

But if you've already said that NASA were capable of creating a rocket and lander which could get to the Moon and back, why couldn't they also create suits capable of sustaining the lives of the astronauts for the same amount of time?

i don't think they were capable of making a rocket, maybe it was a miniature rocket and moon and they secretly got a special effects team to do their job. Also, there is a picture of of an astronaut and the reflection in the helmet shows a piece of rope that is not necessary to be there, were the astronauts being pulled up by rope/thin string to create the low gravity effect?

If you're talking about this picture, it was taken during the Apollo 12 mission, not the Apollo 11 mission.

Click to View Content

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

But even if it was taken during the Apollo 11 mission, do you not think that the special effects team would have painstakingly analyzed every single photo for any flaws?

I don't believe we've ever landed on the Moon, not humans anyway. And special effect teams could have missed that object (rope) and i don't think they could brush something away like we can now on photo shop. Also why do we need suits and not just an oxygen mask/tank, why cant we reveal skin outside of our atmosphere?

There is no air pressure in space, and space is also extremely cold. They would 'fizz' to death without suits on to regulate their temperature and pressure.
They could have missed it, yes, but that doesn't prove that they did.
As far as I'm aware the common response to that picture is that it's an exposure blur.

It does look like a ceiling fan, it could've been used to make the flag look wavy, and what about the rock that was labelled 'c'? stage props?

The flag had a wire running through it to keep it in a wavy looking position. If it was a real flag it would have simply flopped around next to the pole and wouldn't have looked very good on TV. The wire kept it in the position of a waving flag on Earth.
When Neil first pushed the pole into the ground the kinetic energy in the bar would have also caused the flag to wave back and forth, but it did eventually stop as that energy dissipated.

The 'C' rock can be attributed to Pareidolia, a psychological effect in which we see patterns where there are none. It's like when we look at clouds and see the outlines of boots, countries, animals, etc.
This could also explain why people see a ceiling fan, microphone, or rope in the visor blur.

Not to mention that movie studios don't actually label their prop pieces specifically because the label might be seen if the director chooses to film from a different angle.

Movies aren't as advanced as they are today, we don't even need to label props anymore (on set) and yes you need a wire (or something strong enough) to hold up a flag on Earth because the gravity would make the flag flop down, and so this proves the moon landings fake because they needed a wire of some sort to keep the flag up because if on the moon the flag wouldn't need support and the gravity on the moon wouldn't be strong enough to pull down the flag, so if they're in a studio then they will need to hold the flag up, and the flag would move because of vibrations when hitting it into the hole fitted for the flag.

ahh yea the gravity would be strong enough to pull the flag down. The wire is so they could get a good shpt. Wouldn't look very good if all you could see was a flopped down flag. There is obviously no way to change your mind on this short of taking you to the moon. We use the "mirrors" to see the exact distance how is that not proof enough we have been?

What proof do you need? at the end of the day your only counter argument is that it is all fake and studio work. They didn't have the camera tech back then to fake it. I suggest watching "moon fake not" on youtube. Pretty good.

there were film producers who created effects of space etc. and only a few at the time, it wouldn't be hard to set up a studio of the moon landing. and what about there being no stars?(read my first two replies) and why would someone want to play golf on the moon, priorities? as well they shut down all of the Apollo mission files? why? to show no evidence of the moon landings being fake?

The lack of stars is attributable to to the light exposure capabilities of the cameras being used.
Basically, the cameras weren't good enough to capture the stars.
The light from the Sun bouncing off the surface of the Moon was so bright that it 'washed out' the light from the stars. This happens on Earth too, but it's not as strong here because our atmosphere filters most of the ultraviolet rays out of the light before it hits the planet's surface.
It's why you can see stars better at some points on Earth compared to others, places without a lot of artificial light are the worst places to see stars.

Astronaut Alan Shepard took a golf ball with him and took a 2 minute break from setting up equipment to hit it. It wasn't that big of a deal.

As far as I can tell they haven't shut down the Apollo mission files.
All of the information on what occurred, the pictures taken, audio logs, etc. are all out there on the internet to find.

Can you link me to an article or something proving that the files are locked? I can't seem to find any.

there were a few visible stars on the moon landing photos, and not to say that our atmosphere is so polluted and has so many gases etc. to block out stars and other things visible in the sky, so the moon should be one of the best places we now to date to see stars as clear in the sky as they can be.

I can see no visible stars in any of the moon landing photos from Apollo 11.
Stars aren't as visible on the Moon because the Moon's surface is so reflective.
It creates its own artificial light, just like if you were to stand in the middle of Las Vegas at night you wouldn't be able to see any stars, but if you were to stand in the middle of the desert you would see a lot.

Click to View Content

OK. So the 5 proofs:

5. Flag waves - We've already addressed that.
4. Sped up footage looks like it was recorded on Earth - This is easy to explain, they were hopping. You can hop on Earth and you would hop faster on Earth, so of course sped up footage of them hopping on the Moon would look like it was recorded on Earth. They were hopping about the same height that you would be able to on Earth because it let them get around more quickly and safely. Jumping extremely high would have been dangerous.
3. No visible stars - We've already addressed that.
2. Lander not leaving large depressions on the ground - The weight of the lander was distributed evenly through the lander's footpads. Not to mention that the lander didn't move once it had landed, so they wouldn't have taken any pictures of its 'footprints' despite them being there. You can't see your own footprint until you lift your foot out of it.
1. Rocks from the Moon are identical to rocks on Earth - Those rocks are called Lunar Meteorites. Only 30 have ever been found on Earth, so it's not like they are all over the place. They happen when a meteor hits the Moon which in turn blasts chunks of the Moon towards Earth.

the flag waves are happening when they are placing it down as if there is wind or if wind has been created which cannot happen. and stars should be visible from the moon as there is no atmosphere with gases to block them, and it doesn't matter if the moon has a shiny reflective surface, and as well an astronaut has two shadows when there is one sun not two.

They were moving the flag when it was being placed, that causes it to have a waving effect.
The Moon's reflective surface absolutely matters.
You're trying to debate the fact that more light closer to you makes it harder to see the light further away from you?
This page explains the science behind it and the pictures.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

I've already given a reason why there would be two shadows, the lander was covered with reflective panels to cope with the heat upon re-entering the Earth's atmosphere.

the flag was moving at the speed as if it had been hit by a wind source/effect. And yes if a light source is closer to you of course other objects that are light will be harder to see, take a normal house light for example, if you stare at it (with your eyes or a camera up quite close) then you will find it harder to see other bright objects in the sky/or in the distance. but with the moon there isn't a light source bright enough to block out the visibility of the stars.

Considering wind speed can be anything from a breeze to a hurricane, I can't disagree with you there.
I can disagree with the logic of conflating the movements of a man trying to put a flag into the ground on the Moon with that flag being hit by wind though.

The Moon itself, it's surface, reflects the light from the Sun with much more intensity than Earth does.

so how come we can just see darkness in the distance in all directions from the moon, say for instance you weren't looking where the light was reflecting (dark side of the moon or simply facing away from the light) and how can we not see stars then?

If you weren't looking where the light was reflecting? If the light is reflecting off the ground beneath your feet for hundreds of miles in every direction, you can't be looking somewhere where it isn't reflecting because it is reflecting everywhere around you.

The astronauts said that only if they stood in the shadow of the lander could they see the very brightest stars.

On the dark side of the Moon you would be able to see the stars, but they didn't go to the dark side of the Moon.

so why haven't we been there since 1972 and why wouldn't we try to inhabit people there first and why would they go for Mars?

There is no reason to go back to the Moon now, and it costs a lot.
I answered your second question in my first post on this topic.

it doesn't matter why would we go for mars first, logically you would inhabit people on the moon first because it costs less and isn't as far, and if they've already been to the moon like they say they have, then they know that they could get there for sure, so why would they risk going to mars when they don't even know for definite if they can get there or not.

That's the point though, we can't inhabit the Moon.
It's too different and hostile. We would spend billions to get to the Moon and have people there live in bubbles made to simulate the Earth using none of the Moon's natural features to help them. There is no point.

It's like playing football in your overgrown front garden when you have a well mown pitch right across the street.
You have to travel further and you might get hit by a car, but it's going to be better in the long run.

NASA doesn't have bottomless pockets. They need to choose wisely where they spend their money. Humans need to find another planet to live on which is sustainable for a long period of time because this one is dying. Mars is the closest planet to us in both distance and environment.
They would send people to the Moon, only to find out that we can't live there long term and that we need to go for Mars, which they already know. It would be a complete waste of time, money and effort.

well it doesn't matter if you're living in bubbles does it? logically you would start easy and work your way up, you wouldn't do something that is risky, especially when it costs lots of money.

Yes, it does matter if they were living in bubbles.
The idea is to get as many people living on another planet, or satellite, and having them use its resources to sustain themselves.
On the Moon, everything they use would be imported from Earth. Their food would be, their housing, their energy, their oxygen.

On Mars they would be self sustainable. They have just discovered water on Mars meaning that plants will be able to grow. They can use that water to power their accommodation with hydroelectrics. The atmosphere on Mars will eventually, with the introduction of new plants, become more like Earths meaning it could eventually be breathable and warm enough to not even require wearing suits.
That's far in to the future though. But the Moon doesn't have any of these possibilities.

The Moon is a dead rock with no water, no atmosphere, no possibility for life to grow, and the wrong gravity level for humans to survive for long periods of time.

Both the Moon and Mars cost a lot of money to get to, Mars more so.
The difference is that the money spent on getting us to Mars would be money well spent and a lasting investment.

ZTG wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

ZTG wrote Yes of course we did, it's been proven multiple times.

So prove to me that they landed on the moon, you probably can't.

This thread has shown plenty of proof you idiot ahaha.

Plus we don't go there again because it would cost billions of money

Prove to me yourself that we landed on the moon.

They have not been there i have been to the moon myself their is no flag their like they claim.

TaDeDraGz wrote

ZTG wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

ZTG wrote Yes of course we did, it's been proven multiple times.

So prove to me that they landed on the moon, you probably can't.

This thread has shown plenty of proof you idiot ahaha.

Plus we don't go there again because it would cost billions of money

Prove to me yourself that we landed on the moon.

Okay let me spend billions of dollars and go to space.

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Click to View Content

kljasdkagfaskfasfdoh wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Nocebo wrote Yes we did.

There are reflectors on the Moon used to measure the distance between the Earth and Moon.
They were put there during the Apollo 11 mission and can be - and are - seen and used by amateur astronomers all over the world.
It's called the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Irrefutable proof that we did land on the Moon, unless those reflectors got up there in some other way.

there are theories of the moon being a giant hologram printed into the sky, i'm not that crazy though. And have you seen photos where the shadows are coming from multiple directions, how? As well could the reflectors have been sent by the rocket they claimed the astronauts were in? and that rocket went to the moon and dropped the reflectors? And the astronauts were in a studio with fake props of the reflectors?

Even on Earth the bumps and hills in a picture affect which directions the shadows fall in.
Not to mention that the lunar lander was covered with reflective plates.
I would simply say that the pictures of the astronauts on the Moon prove that astronauts were on the Moon.

But if you've already said that NASA were capable of creating a rocket and lander which could get to the Moon and back, why couldn't they also create suits capable of sustaining the lives of the astronauts for the same amount of time?

i don't think they were capable of making a rocket, maybe it was a miniature rocket and moon and they secretly got a special effects team to do their job. Also, there is a picture of of an astronaut and the reflection in the helmet shows a piece of rope that is not necessary to be there, were the astronauts being pulled up by rope/thin string to create the low gravity effect?

If you're talking about this picture, it was taken during the Apollo 12 mission, not the Apollo 11 mission.

Click to View Content

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

But even if it was taken during the Apollo 11 mission, do you not think that the special effects team would have painstakingly analyzed every single photo for any flaws?

I don't believe we've ever landed on the Moon, not humans anyway. And special effect teams could have missed that object (rope) and i don't think they could brush something away like we can now on photo shop. Also why do we need suits and not just an oxygen mask/tank, why cant we reveal skin outside of our atmosphere?

There is no air pressure in space, and space is also extremely cold. They would 'fizz' to death without suits on to regulate their temperature and pressure.
They could have missed it, yes, but that doesn't prove that they did.
As far as I'm aware the common response to that picture is that it's an exposure blur.

It does look like a ceiling fan, it could've been used to make the flag look wavy, and what about the rock that was labelled 'c'? stage props?

The flag had a wire running through it to keep it in a wavy looking position. If it was a real flag it would have simply flopped around next to the pole and wouldn't have looked very good on TV. The wire kept it in the position of a waving flag on Earth.
When Neil first pushed the pole into the ground the kinetic energy in the bar would have also caused the flag to wave back and forth, but it did eventually stop as that energy dissipated.

The 'C' rock can be attributed to Pareidolia, a psychological effect in which we see patterns where there are none. It's like when we look at clouds and see the outlines of boots, countries, animals, etc.
This could also explain why people see a ceiling fan, microphone, or rope in the visor blur.

Not to mention that movie studios don't actually label their prop pieces specifically because the label might be seen if the director chooses to film from a different angle.

Movies aren't as advanced as they are today, we don't even need to label props anymore (on set) and yes you need a wire (or something strong enough) to hold up a flag on Earth because the gravity would make the flag flop down, and so this proves the moon landings fake because they needed a wire of some sort to keep the flag up because if on the moon the flag wouldn't need support and the gravity on the moon wouldn't be strong enough to pull down the flag, so if they're in a studio then they will need to hold the flag up, and the flag would move because of vibrations when hitting it into the hole fitted for the flag.

ahh yea the gravity would be strong enough to pull the flag down. The wire is so they could get a good shpt. Wouldn't look very good if all you could see was a flopped down flag. There is obviously no way to change your mind on this short of taking you to the moon. We use the "mirrors" to see the exact distance how is that not proof enough we have been?

What proof do you need? at the end of the day your only counter argument is that it is all fake and studio work. They didn't have the camera tech back then to fake it. I suggest watching "moon fake not" on youtube. Pretty good.

there were film producers who created effects of space etc. and only a few at the time, it wouldn't be hard to set up a studio of the moon landing. and what about there being no stars?(read my first two replies) and why would someone want to play golf on the moon, priorities? as well they shut down all of the Apollo mission files? why? to show no evidence of the moon landings being fake?

The lack of stars is attributable to to the light exposure capabilities of the cameras being used.
Basically, the cameras weren't good enough to capture the stars.
The light from the Sun bouncing off the surface of the Moon was so bright that it 'washed out' the light from the stars. This happens on Earth too, but it's not as strong here because our atmosphere filters most of the ultraviolet rays out of the light before it hits the planet's surface.
It's why you can see stars better at some points on Earth compared to others, places without a lot of artificial light are the worst places to see stars.

Astronaut Alan Shepard took a golf ball with him and took a 2 minute break from setting up equipment to hit it. It wasn't that big of a deal.

As far as I can tell they haven't shut down the Apollo mission files.
All of the information on what occurred, the pictures taken, audio logs, etc. are all out there on the internet to find.

Can you link me to an article or something proving that the files are locked? I can't seem to find any.

there were a few visible stars on the moon landing photos, and not to say that our atmosphere is so polluted and has so many gases etc. to block out stars and other things visible in the sky, so the moon should be one of the best places we now to date to see stars as clear in the sky as they can be.

I can see no visible stars in any of the moon landing photos from Apollo 11.
Stars aren't as visible on the Moon because the Moon's surface is so reflective.
It creates its own artificial light, just like if you were to stand in the middle of Las Vegas at night you wouldn't be able to see any stars, but if you were to stand in the middle of the desert you would see a lot.

Click to View Content

OK. So the 5 proofs:

5. Flag waves - We've already addressed that.
4. Sped up footage looks like it was recorded on Earth - This is easy to explain, they were hopping. You can hop on Earth and you would hop faster on Earth, so of course sped up footage of them hopping on the Moon would look like it was recorded on Earth. They were hopping about the same height that you would be able to on Earth because it let them get around more quickly and safely. Jumping extremely high would have been dangerous.
3. No visible stars - We've already addressed that.
2. Lander not leaving large depressions on the ground - The weight of the lander was distributed evenly through the lander's footpads. Not to mention that the lander didn't move once it had landed, so they wouldn't have taken any pictures of its 'footprints' despite them being there. You can't see your own footprint until you lift your foot out of it.
1. Rocks from the Moon are identical to rocks on Earth - Those rocks are called Lunar Meteorites. Only 30 have ever been found on Earth, so it's not like they are all over the place. They happen when a meteor hits the Moon which in turn blasts chunks of the Moon towards Earth.

the flag waves are happening when they are placing it down as if there is wind or if wind has been created which cannot happen. and stars should be visible from the moon as there is no atmosphere with gases to block them, and it doesn't matter if the moon has a shiny reflective surface, and as well an astronaut has two shadows when there is one sun not two.

They were moving the flag when it was being placed, that causes it to have a waving effect.
The Moon's reflective surface absolutely matters.
You're trying to debate the fact that more light closer to you makes it harder to see the light further away from you?
This page explains the science behind it and the pictures.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

I've already given a reason why there would be two shadows, the lander was covered with reflective panels to cope with the heat upon re-entering the Earth's atmosphere.

the flag was moving at the speed as if it had been hit by a wind source/effect. And yes if a light source is closer to you of course other objects that are light will be harder to see, take a normal house light for example, if you stare at it (with your eyes or a camera up quite close) then you will find it harder to see other bright objects in the sky/or in the distance. but with the moon there isn't a light source bright enough to block out the visibility of the stars.

Considering wind speed can be anything from a breeze to a hurricane, I can't disagree with you there.
I can disagree with the logic of conflating the movements of a man trying to put a flag into the ground on the Moon with that flag being hit by wind though.

The Moon itself, it's surface, reflects the light from the Sun with much more intensity than Earth does.

so how come we can just see darkness in the distance in all directions from the moon, say for instance you weren't looking where the light was reflecting (dark side of the moon or simply facing away from the light) and how can we not see stars then?

If you weren't looking where the light was reflecting? If the light is reflecting off the ground beneath your feet for hundreds of miles in every direction, you can't be looking somewhere where it isn't reflecting because it is reflecting everywhere around you.

The astronauts said that only if they stood in the shadow of the lander could they see the very brightest stars.

On the dark side of the Moon you would be able to see the stars, but they didn't go to the dark side of the Moon.

so why haven't we been there since 1972 and why wouldn't we try to inhabit people there first and why would they go for Mars?

There is no reason to go back to the Moon now, and it costs a lot.
I answered your second question in my first post on this topic.

it doesn't matter why would we go for mars first, logically you would inhabit people on the moon first because it costs less and isn't as far, and if they've already been to the moon like they say they have, then they know that they could get there for sure, so why would they risk going to mars when they don't even know for definite if they can get there or not.

That's the point though, we can't inhabit the Moon.
It's too different and hostile. We would spend billions to get to the Moon and have people there live in bubbles made to simulate the Earth using none of the Moon's natural features to help them. There is no point.

It's like playing football in your overgrown front garden when you have a well mown pitch right across the street.
You have to travel further and you might get hit by a car, but it's going to be better in the long run.

NASA doesn't have bottomless pockets. They need to choose wisely where they spend their money. Humans need to find another planet to live on which is sustainable for a long period of time because this one is dying. Mars is the closest planet to us in both distance and environment.
They would send people to the Moon, only to find out that we can't live there long term and that we need to go for Mars, which they already know. It would be a complete waste of time, money and effort.

well it doesn't matter if you're living in bubbles does it? logically you would start easy and work your way up, you wouldn't do something that is risky, especially when it costs lots of money.

Yes, it does matter if they were living in bubbles.
The idea is to get as many people living on another planet, or satellite, and having them use its resources to sustain themselves.
On the Moon, everything they use would be imported from Earth. Their food would be, their housing, their energy, their oxygen.

On Mars they would be self sustainable. They have just discovered water on Mars meaning that plants will be able to grow. They can use that water to power their accommodation with hydroelectrics. The atmosphere on Mars will eventually, with the introduction of new plants, become more like Earths meaning it could eventually be breathable and warm enough to not even require wearing suits.
That's far in to the future though. But the Moon doesn't have any of these possibilities.

The Moon is a dead rock with no water, no atmosphere, no possibility for life to grow, and the wrong gravity level for humans to survive for long periods of time.

Both the Moon and Mars cost a lot of money to get to, Mars more so.
The difference is that the money spent on getting us to Mars would be money well spent and a lasting investment.

you couldn't just go in another planet and breathe on it, it would take millions of years for anything on this earth to adapt to it, and you don't even know if that water is H2O, it could have different minerals/gases that make up this so called 'water' on Mars, meaning it could have a huge effect and could harm humans.