Did we really land on the Moon, or is that a staged set?
97561
Apollo was not a hoax, please.  The program gave us some of the technology that you are using right now.  \nYeah, the U.S. government spent millions just to make it look like we went to the moon just to spite the ruskies.  Trust me, they are not creative enough to hatch a scheme like in the movie "Wag the Dog".
310574
Okay then... I too have my thoughts on this. I believe we did go. "in the footage the flag waves... that's because we put wires in it to make it do that. there are other things that I have no proof for but I did do an essay on Neil Armstrong so whatever.... I'm no expert...
252263
Yes it is  well documented that we did.\nIt really would have been impossible to fake. and even more impossible to conceal a hoax of that magnitude for this long.\n\nThere is a vast deal of technology that came from the space  program .\nThe Apollo spacecraft was seen during its trans-Lunar coast by observers on Earth. Amateur astronomers were able to sight the spacecraft, exactly where they should have been, during the trans-Lunar coast and amateur radio operators were able to listen-in on the command module in Lunar orbit. The explosion of Apollo 13 was caught on video tape by an amateur astronomer. Russia and radio telescope observatories not owned or controlled by the USA also tracked the Apollo spacecrafts and transmissions.
814259
No. I saw the film. \n\nIt is possible that I just imagined seeing this film, but this is just a conspiracy by those who believe that the moon is made of cheese.
552042
No, it's the stuff of the lunatic (no pun intended) fringe.\n\nHowever, if you want to see some evidence, go to www.badastronomy.com\n\nAll the supposed "evidence" is flawed.\n\nI think subsequent, unmanned trips have inadvertently photographed the space junk left behind on the lunar surface.  It couldn't be there if we hadn't left it.\n\nThe only piece of proof you'd need is for an unmanned probe to photograph the flag we left.
278952
The space shuttle went to the Moon???? Har, har, har.....! Right off the bat, your lack of knowledge about the manned lunar landings is glaringly evident.\n\n"...no way we could have past through the suns radiation belt..."\nGee whiz, with your vast education and expertise as an astrophysicist you must surely be right. Actually, you don't have the first clue about this subject. Get your head out of the sand and get the facts from genuine scientific experts at these sites -->\nhttp://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad19.html\nhttp://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s2ch3.htm\n\nThe only flight hardware that returned to the surface of Earth were the command modules. Where are they? See this website --> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apolloloc.html\n\nFinally, before persisting with this idiotic notion about the lunar landings all being faked, just ask yourself a couple of questions --\n(1)rock and soil samples returned from the Moon were passed out to research groups around the world. After examination and scientific testing, all confirmed that the material was non-terrestrial (that means not of Earth) and met all the pre-conceived theories of what lunar material would be like;\n(2)of the thousands upon thousands of personnel directly involved in the manned lunar missions, not one has come forward with a word about the whole thing being faked\n\nInstead of running around hollering that everything was faked, take a look at some genuine information that quickly buries the "facts" proving a scam occurred at this website -->http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html\n\nThe only thing more incredible than the actual lunar landings is that so many numbskulls have been duped by the blather about it all being faked.
302436
Actually I believe they did... evidence exists and all the proof people give to say otherwise can easily be explained... space missions still go one today and people do still land on the moon. It's not impossible! We should be glad that people are making the effort to study the things around us - though perhaps my only qualm is that the money spent could be better used for something else... like helping the poor
1077212
It wasn't faked. I agree, the technology involved was bare bones but still capable. Here are some quotes that help counter some of the conspiracy theories:\n\nIn some photos, the crosshairs appear to be behind objects, rather than in front of them where they should be, as if the photos were altered.\n\n        * In photography, the light white color (the object behind the crosshair) makes the black object (the crosshair) invisible due to saturation effects in the film emulsion. The film particles that ought to have been black were exposed by light from the adjacent brightly lit particles. Ironically, this saturation effect would not happen if the crosshairs were drawn on in post, and so is evidence of genuine photos. Attempting to alter photos that already have crosshairs would make the compositing process far more difficult.\n\nThe quality of the photographs is implausibly high.\n\n        * The astronauts were trained in the use of their gear, and shots and poses were planned in advance as part of the mission. NASA selected only the best photographs for release to the public, and some of the photos were cropped to improve their composition. There are many badly exposed, badly focused and poorly composed images amongst the thousands of photos that were taken by the Apollo Astronauts. Many can be seen at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Photos were taken on high-quality Hasselblad cameras with Zeiss lenses, using 70 mm medium format film.\n\nThere are no stars in any of the photos, and astronauts never report seeing any stars from the capsule windows. \n\n         *Stars are also never seen in Space Shuttle, Mir, International Space Station Earth observation photos, or even sporting events that take place at night. The sun in the Earth/Moon area shines as brightly as on a clear noon day on Earth, so cameras used for imaging these things are set for daylight exposure, with quick shutter speeds in order to prevent overexposing the film. The dim light of the stars simply does not have a chance to expose the film.\n\nhe color and angle of shadows and light are inconsistent.\n\n        * Shadows on the Moon are complicated because there are several light sources: the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon itself. \n\n The Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.\n\n        * There is no atmosphere to efficiently couple lunar surface heat to devices such as cameras not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism. \n\nThe launch rocket produced no visible flame.\n\n        * Hydrazine (a fuel) and dinitrogen tetroxide (an oxidizer) were the Lunar Module propellants, chosen for their reliability; they ignite hypergolically –upon contact– without a spark. Hypergolic propellants happen to produce a nearly transparent exhaust. Hypergolic fuels are also used by several space launchers: the core of the American Titan, the Russian Proton, the European Ariane 1 through 4 and the Chinese Long March, and the transparency of their plumes is apparent in many launch photos.\n\nThe flag placed on the surface by the astronauts flapped despite there being no wind on the Moon.\n\n        * The astronauts were moving the flag into position, causing motion. Since there is no air on the Moon to provide friction, these movements caused a long-lasting undulating movement seen in the flag. There was a rod extending from the top of the flagpole to hold the flag out for proper display. The fabric's rippled appearance was due to its having been folded during flight and gave it an appearance which could be mistaken for motion in a still photograph.\n\nThese are only a few quotes. They all seem much more convincing then the arguments the conspiracy theorists present.
414300
It was Neil Armstrong. The lander had multiple cameras on it.\n\nIf you think its a conspiracy theory, then you have your whacked out beliefs. ;-)
727779
Did man really walk on the Moon ??? \n      \n   \nWeb Krishna.org \n \n\n\nDid man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick, asks David Milne? The greater lunar lie. In the early hours of May 16, 1990, after a week spent watching old video footage of man on the Moon, a thought was turning into an obsession in the mind of Ralph Rene. David Milne (04-07-06)\n\n"How can the flag be fluttering," the 47 year old American kept asking himself, "when there's no wind on the atmosphere free Moon?" That moment was to be the beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for the self-taught engineer from New Jersey. He started investigating the Apollo Moon landings, scouring every NASA film, photo and report with a growing sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake. \n\nIt is of course the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. But Rene has now put all his findings into a startling book entitled NASA Mooned America. Published by himself, it's being sold by mail order - and is a compelling read. \n\nThe story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space, leaving a panicked America trailing in the space race. \n\nAt an emergency meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver, put a man on the Moon. With an impassioned speech he secured the plan an unbelievable 40 billion dollars. And so, says Rene (and a growing number of astro-physicists are beginning to agree with him), the great Moon hoax was born. \n\nBetween 1969 and 1972, seven Apollo ships headed to the Moon. Six claim to have made it, with the ill fated Apollo 13--whose oxygen tanks apparently exploded halfway--being the only casualties. \n\nBut with the exception of the known rocks, which could have been easily mocked up in a lab, the photographs and film footage are the only proof that the Eagle ever landed. And Rene believes they're fake. For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts gambol threw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film "man's greatest achievement" from a TV screen in Houston--a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it. \n\nBy contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred. As Rene points out, that's not all: \n\nThe cameras had no white meters or view finders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing. \nThere film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. \nThey managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized clubs. It should have been almost impossible to bend their fingers. . \nAward winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows: \n\nThe shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and, in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun. \nThe American flag and the words "United States" are always brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow. \nNot one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time. \nThe pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly. \nDavid Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by "whistle blowers", who were keen for the truth to on
852611
YOU ARE RIGHT.\nAmerica is making fool, they never landed on moon, it is all fake story.
78332
There's always been heavy debate as to whether or not we've actually been to the moon, etc. and there is actual evidence that we haven't. maybe what you're seeing is a farce, maybe it's just some scientific anomaly. Who outside of the space program can say for sure?
1047407
Of course not.  There is no evidence what so ever to support this fact.  One conspiracy theory I've heard is that in the photo of the moon landing, you can see a prop marked with the letter C in the foreground.  According to proponents of this theory, the C is the type of mark used in theatre to organize props.\n\nUnfortunately, the so called c is obviously just a shadow on a rock.  And in prop work, the props are not marked with letters.\n\nThe moon landing was an important event in US history from a Cold War satnpoint.  At this period, the US and the USSR were competing in many arenas, of which the space program was just one.  Faking the moon landing would never have worked.  The USSR would not have fallen for it.\n\nAlso, about the flag "waving:"  The flag on the moon is made of metal formed into the shape of a moving flag.  It does not move, it simply appears to stand up as in wind.
877244
I saw this live on TV when it happened.  The flag did move.  Armstrong and Aldrin had to stand it up.  When they stood it up, they started it swinging.  It is swung like a pendulum.  And, because there is no atmosphere on the moon, there is no air resistance to slow it down.  Simple science.
1099347
Yes i do. The Moon Landing. I dont think it happened.
155089
no...they didnt land on the moon at all and lot of evidence points that the moon landings were faked\n1,,to reach moon the astonauts had to pass beyond the van allen belt.which is a protective barrier of charged particles cosmic rays etc..beyond which they wud b exposed to intense harmful cosmic rays...thir aircraft apollo 11 had only a thin lining of lead for protection which is not at all sufficient...so it is suggested dat apollo 11 just cirled up before reachuing the van allen belt\n2,,moreover the photographic film wud hav been clearly damaged while passing thru the belt as it does it if its passeed thru an ordinary xray machine\n3,,the camera that the astros used i.e. hasselblad wree old fashioned and changing their photographic plates is a very tricky process requiring handling of delicate plates n nimble fingers...this task was impossible 4 the astros as they wore thick rubber gloves\n4,,one of their pics shows the terrain behind aldrin fading away into the horizon while there is no atmosphere on moon to cause such an effect\n4,,more over in one of the pics some suspiciuos equipments reflection can be seen on aldrins visor..it can cl4early be seen againt the darkness of the horizonwhere one might expectto glimpse a piece of film equipment if it had been shot in a film studio\n5,,moreover the absence of stars in the pics,lack of scortch marksand a crater under the lunar module which wud hav been formed by its landing are suspiciously missing\n\nhence too much to prove that the landings were faked
314147
From what I hear:\n1. the Blair Witch Project was real, but\n2. the 1969 lunar landing was filmed in a studio on Earth.\n\nHmmmmmmm. Now what do you think?