is it true that neil armstrong did not go into space at all?that the pic of him on moon was taken at a studio?
81024
Good Lord. Where have you been getting your information from? Where ever it is, STOP!
233648
There was a cover-up, but not full blown. NASA didn't have 100% reliability in the video and photographic end to show the World. When problems came up they substituted shots to make it look like a flawless mission, which it wasn't. True there is some glaring impossibilities in some shots, about 95% was shown unedited. But just because some areas were was faked doesn't mean the whole mission was faked.\nSo, Yes they were on the Moon, No, they didn't get the only photo that really mattered in a high enough quality to parade proudly before the whole world watching,(first step off the ladder),because of a bad camera angle and subject in almost complete shadow.Yes, you have a good question.\n\nAdditional thought:\nReleasing this video and stills event were probably "Production" oriented people running the "show".\nThey see information as not necessarily an absolute document of the events, but a presentation.\nThey rely on 2 "rolls".\nThe A Roll which has the primary information on it.\nThe B Roll which can be relied on to fill production errors.\nIdeally you would air only the A roll in a perfect documentary, but that didn't happen.\nB roll info was inserted to fill the gaps.\nSomeone had to make the decision as to whether it was more important to have a documentary or a production.\nIt would have looked very bad to have unusable video and stills for long or important events. "They can send a man to the moon but they can't take a picture?"\nSo we all saw a production.
979631
First off... if they really did land on the moon... how in the world and why in the world would they lose the original footage of the moon landing. Wouldn't that footage have been a coveted prize from our early space exploration???  Of course it would have... NASA losing that footage so that it can no longer be tested or viewed should be a big hint for those who still believe the moon landing to be true.  The footage of Neil Armstrong's historic moment is one of the most important artifacts of the 20th century.  Therefore, who would benefit from losing the footage???  and more importantly, what would they gain??? \n\nSecond, consider the fact that they could not land back onto Earth after they returned from the lunar mission... however, they expect us to believe that they could land on the moon and then take back off from the moon... BUT... they would then have to land in the ocean when they returned. If we didn't have the technology to LAND back on Earth... how in world could we have done everything else that they stated they did. Sadly, our technology was definitely in its infancy stage in 1969 and hasn't even progressed enough at this time to undertake a lunar mission.  Notice how NASA is hoping for a lunar mission by 2018... why the long wait?  I personally think that they are being forced to wait since "the average Joe" now has the technology and capabilities to view and evaluate the whole mission from start to finish... and therefore, they can't fake anything.
371858
I am a big project Apollo fan and have done a lot of reading into this over the years (including the conspiracies). Armstrong has never talked openly about the moonlandings in public and most of what is reported from him has been hearsay. One thing I did read is that he was meant to say 'That's one small step for A man, one giant....'. I read also that the lunar ladder to the surface had to be modified after the landing as it was too short.
1127669
Absolutely real! The couple of boobs who made accusations saying it was fake are complete idiots! Neither of the two who started this rumor had any technical background to support their claims! Find some old movie clips and see for yourself. The actions of the astronauts could not possibly be mimicked here on Earth! So now we have a paradox, in order to fake the moon landing you would have to go to the nearest object  to us in space which would be......you guessed it! The moon! Give Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin cudos for being the brave men they were and leave it rest! I remember watching it in awe live in my classroom at the ripe old age of 16! The onboard computers they used were no where near as powerful as your basic dell 300 dollar desktop.....they didnt have any more than 32 kilobits of ram and were totally programmed in binary. These men came dangerously close to not making it on their lunar landing.\nP.S. Nikis answer below explains why romania is still a third world, uneducated country. Her statement "why not the flag freeze?" is simply because there was no moisture present.
1105641
Your question has been answered.  In fact, even the largest telescopes do not have the resolving capacity to see a flag on the moon.  \n\nWhy would you think it was faked?
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.
7933
Neil Armstrong is the first man to walk on the Moon.  However, no man has ever stayed behind on the moon, as it would be a certain death sentence.
238713
Men landed on moon during the times of space age race between Russia and USA. If it were a fraud, Russia would have been on top of it to bring it up. So, I guess it was confirmed that man really did land on moon and got rock samples back to earth. So i think it really happened. It can't be fraud. Ofcourse there is this talk about pictures taken by astronauts in moon that looks fake and all...but there are equally positive proofs of video and pictures taken on moon too. If you ask me, i think it is real.
547217
Good grief -- I've only been visiting this site for a month, and this is about the fifteenth time someone has asked this same ludicrous question.\n\nYes, we landed on the moon. \nYes, we went back several times. \nYes, we left things on the moon that can still be seen today. \nYes, we left a flag on the moon -- but it wasn't flapping in the breeze in the famous photo: its momentum after being unfurled has kept it moving in the absence of anything to slow it down.\n\nYes, we brought back samples of dust and rocks that have been studied for nearly 40 years. And there's nothing like them anywhere on Earth.\n\nNo, we haven't gone back since the landings because there are no economically viable reasons to do so in this modern era of cost-effectiveness and the bottom line driving science. But just because we haven't been back doesn't mean we were never there in the first place.\n\nThe U.S. was in a major competition with the Soviets to prove our scientific superiority. If we'd never landed on the moon, and it was all a sham, do you think the thousands of NASA employees would be able to keep the secret? Do you think every other nation in the world would remain complicit in the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated"?\n\nIsn't there a FAQ on Yahoo Answers that could put this baby to rest??  I can't believe that people still think this was some kind of hoax!
237817
Well, you are right in one thing!\n\nWE didn´t land on the moon. \nNeil Armstrong did, and the other poor astronaut that for landing second on the moon got to never be remembered.\n\nWhat´s with the WE? \n\nBut getting serious with your question, there are some conspiracy theories about it.\nThey say that the USA knew of the Soviets plans to go the moon, and since we where in the middle of the Cold War, oppinion and image WAS EVERYTHING, so the USA mounted a Fake stage of the moon, launched a rocket and claim to be the first ones in the moon.\n\nThere has never been any evidence of the moon landing not ever taking place.
488362
They didn't stage it. \n\n> If it was not fake then where are the real tapes. why are > they missing. \n\nWhat "tapes" are these? film, video and data are freely available from NASA.\n\n> wht Buzz aldrin is not ready to give interviews. \n\nBuzz gives interviews all the time. Buzz even punched that gasbag Bart Siebrel!\n\n> And how did the video shows lift off from the moon when no > body stayed there to shoot it. \n\nRobotic camera.\n\n> HOw did flag waved? \n\nThe flag wasn't "waving" in a wind It had ripples in it from the moment it was unfurled, and with no wind to change that, they stayed static.\n\n> how they communicated via vaccumm. dose satellite \n> transmits signals in vaccuum. \n\nYes, satellites transmit signals in vacuum. And so do remote landing craft on the moon directly back to earth. And so do incredibly remote robotic spacecraft that are now beyond the edge of our solar system. And on mars. And orbiting Saturn. And on the way to Pluto. AND being "transmitted" at earth from interstellar radio sources like stars. Electromagnetic signals do not need a medium to be transmitted-they are their own medium. \n\nanswer all this and i belive that NASA did landed.
996857
Based on the information out there, I now believe that they never went  to the moon. There is no wind on the moon, yet the flag blows in the background. The angles of lighting do not match the way they are supposed to, unless lighting was set up...and an extensive amount. The temperatre that the films would have been subjected to, would have destroyed the pictures. And for the picture of the footprint on the moon, there would have had to have been moisture to create such a mark. If you take completey dry sand and try to make a castle out of it, what happens? It crumbles...any child who has been to the beach knows that you need a little water. so, anyone can believe what they want, but im going on facts :)\n\nps...dont mind my spelling
829831
A remote control camera was mounted on the leg of the lunar lander on each of the six moon landings.\n\n1) Twelve 12 American astronauts have walked on the moon.\n\nApollo 11: Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin\nApollo 12: Pete Conrad & Alan Bean\nApollo 13: << failed to land on the moon >>\nApollo 14: Alan Shepard & Edgar (Ed) Mitchell\nApollo 15: David Scott & James Irwin\nApollo 16: John Young & Charles Duke\nApollo 17: Eugene (Gene) Cernan & Harrison Schmidt\n\n\n2) Why haven't we been back?  \n\na) American astronauts visited the moon on six occasions.\n\nb) The "moon race" was an extension of the cold war. It was mostly about national prestige. We got there first and achieved our primary objective. There was some good science: surveys, measurements, sample collection. But it was mostly about being there first. Once we achieved our primary objective, there was no political will to go back. There still isn't.  Perhaps, if we discover He3 or something else valuable, there will be.\n\nc) I used to travel to Crested Butte, Colorado every year to ski. Because I don't go anymore, does it mean that I never went?\n\n\n3) What about the Van Allen radiation belts?  Wouldn't it have killed the astronauts?\n\nThe existence of the Van Allen radiation belts postulated in the 1940s by Nicholas Christofilos.  Their existence was confirmed in *1958* by the Explorer I satellite launched by the USA. \n\nThe radiation in the Van Allen radiation belts is not particularly strong.  You would have to hang out there for a week or so in order to get radiation sickness.  And, because the radiation is not particularly strong, a few millimeters of metal is all that is required for protection.  "An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (25 Sv) per *year*."\n\n"In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. [6]. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation."  When the astronauts returned to Earth, their dosimeters showed that they had received about as much radiation as a couple of medical X-rays.\n\n\n4) The U.S. government scammed everyone?  \n\nIn 1972, there was a politically motivated burglary of a hotel room in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. There were only about six or eight people who knew about it. However, those people, including Richard M. Nixon, the President of the United States, failed to keep that burglary a secret. It exploded into a scandal that drove the President and a number of others from office.\n\nIf six or eight people couldn't keep a hotel room burglary a secret, then how could literally thousands of people could have kept their mouths shut about six faked moon landings? Not just one moon landing, but six of them!\n\n\n5) What about the USSR?  \n\nEven if NASA and other government agencies could have faked the six moon landings well enough to fool the general public, they could NOT have fooled the space agency or military intelligence types in the USSR. The Soviets were just dying to beat us. If the landings were faked, the Soviets would have re-engineered their N-1 booster and landed on the moon just to prove what liars Americans are. Why didn't they? Because the landings were real and the Soviets knew it.\n\n\n6) Why does the flag shake?  Where are the stars?  Who took the video of Neil Armstrong? \n\nTake a look at the first two websites listed below.  They deal well with all of the technical questions.\n\n\n7) Finally, please tell us what you would accept as definitive evidence that the six moon landings were real. Is there anything?
473093
I don't know(we don't know) if it really did land on moon or was it the biggest fool's day prank. But we are certainly required to give an answer when we are asked in examination papers.We cannot(unfortunately) answer with a question- hmmm.........so you really think it did land???\n(I wonder if Sherlock Holmes can help)
930404
Yes, he walked on the moon. Why would the gvt have spent all that money to pull off one big hoax? Money they didn't actually have in those days. Its not like today where a billion dollars is a drop in the bucket.\n\nI feel bad for Neil Armstrong. He walked on the moon and now some asshats are trying to say he didn't. It must feel terrible to have people doubt him.
467101
Yes man landed on the moon. The flag was not waving in any kind of breeze. The flag had a wire in it so that it appeared to be standing out in a breeze. NASA thought that would look better than a flag simply lying flat against a pole. Really now, if NASA was bright enough to pull off this kind of conspiracy, don't you think they would have had enough sense to make sure a flag didn't move.