First Moon Landing: Fake or Not

In conclusion the first source is about why the moon landing was fake and the second source is about why it was real.

In my first source there is a man who claims to know why the moon landing was fake. He has thirteen arguments why. In the bio below the video there are contacts which is an indicator that the source is somehow trustworthy (at least serious). If you have any questions about the moon landing you can contact him to get answers. But he is not a specialist in this area, he has no education that makes him trustworthy to question the moon landing. So he does not know more than any regular person about the moon landing.

This is a historical event so it is hard to do updates, because it has already happened. But if Nasa par example would release new information about the moon and if JP Sears would not update, it would be a large indicator that JP Sears youtube channel is not a serious or reliable source. And one of the most important criteria is the tendency. For what purpose does he do this, to spread propaganda or to raise awareness and contribute with facts? And what are the sources based on, opinions or facts? In my beliefs he spreads propaganda. There is a sarcastic tone to him which makes it hard to distinguish if he is serious or not. Additionally, this is his work, his way to bring the bread to the table. JP Sears thus make money out of this, he earns something from it. The arguments why the moon landing is fake, are not based on true facts, only opinions and ventures and not really based facts. For example why; he tells that Buzz Aldrin hits a reporter who asks if the moon landing was fake. This is not a fact, this does not prove that the moon landing did occur or not. So after examining this source I find it not trustworthy.

The second source only has five arguments, it was rather hard to find an article that had more than five arguments why the moon landing was real. Contacts on this site was hard to find but they linked to their Facebook page and you could also send in questions that you are wondering about the article and they would then answer. It makes them trustworthy but they could have information about who wrote this article and everyone working on this site. This article was uploaded the year 2013 which is fairly old, but in this case it does not matter because it is a historical event that has already happened. If it was about something that is currently happening all the time it would not be trustworthy. This site is to inform people about facts and not to bring out only one angle of the story. The first question the moon landing but then respond back with facts why it happened. So they bring both angles of this case. It is not to make money or fool people. If you look on their site and Facebook page you really see the interests in science and history of those people writing on this article. History Rundown is genuinely interested to provide the society with information and facts. The arguments are based on facts and scientific theories. They also refer to the articles and sites they have used to write this article with. One argument says that the moon landing is fake because there are no pictures that have stars in them but this argument is refuted.

“Another famous argument for the moon landing hoax is a total lack of stars in the photographic and video evidence – even in the photos and videos of high quality. Here on Earth, when there’s a black sky, there is always a lot of stars, so the videos must have been shot on a film stage. Right? Not so fast…

The true reason you can’t see the stars in photos and videos of Moon is not that the stars aren’t there, but rather because of the omnipresent sunlight and the exposure limits of cameras. When these photos were taken, it was full daylight on the Moon. Because there is only an extremely thin atmosphere on the Moon,the sky appears black. In addition, sunlight at the Moon’s surface was incomparably strong with the starlight; the stars simply faded in comparison with the sun. If the astronauts used sufficiently long exposures, stars would, indeed, be visible.”

After studying this article I think it is reliable. So to sum up, the first source was not so trustworthy while the other was rather more reliable.