Do u know? USA never visited the moon! it was just a FAKE!?
452512
I have seen a number of these pro and con.   The con ones are full of really bad science which sound good if you don't know the science (i.e. shadows etc).\n\nIt happened get used to it folks are just trying to get another multi-million dollar conspiracy industry going :-)
25342
Think rally hard. The moon has gravity just like the earth. Have you ever seen a flag on earth stand that straight? They had a metal pole across the top and the grainy video make it look as if it is fluttering.
1139913
Nothing is impossible now, with the development of science and technology.  But we should all be careful as not to do what the US did...staging it on a studio to look like the astronauts have really landed on the moon!  fooled us! but not for long, right?
900326
America did not land on the Moon. We payed billions of dollars for the 360 foot Saturn 5 rocket so we could look at it and say wow that is a big rocket. We kept approx. 400,000 technicians, scientists and construction contractors quiet, with zero leaks to the public. The rocks that we thought that came from moon and have proved to be from the moon are really from the Pacific Ocean. \n\nOther Conspiracies to think about: \n\n1. The Jews did not suffer in Germany because there was no Holocaust. Actually it was the Jews that was torturing the poor blond haired deprived Germans. Those tattoos on the Jews arms and hands that are still alive today (by the grace of God) are really there because they want to be hip. \n\n2. We knew the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor before they did. I mean come-on President Roosevelt liked the thought of our boys baking inside the Battle Ship Arizona before they died. The President was looking for a better way to get a good nights sleep. \n\n3. 9/11 conspiracy: the number of people it would've taken to pull off the largest mass murder in US history could fill one of the towers. Do you think the present administration is competent enough to pull off the largest scam in history? The Watergate and Enron capers were known by a handful of people and the secrets were leaked. So how did the 9/11 keep thousands of people's lips sealed?\n\n4. The Mafia whacked JFK, via the Russian connection, via the Cuban connection. The man on the grassy knoll was a CIA agent acting on orders from Marcello of New Orleans with complicity of the then Boss of Boss Giancana in Chicago. Ruby whacked Oswald to seal the path to the Mafia, he was a two-bit night club owner in Marcello's outfit...true story.\n\n5. Aliens landed in Roswell and we transported them to Area 51 to back engineer their technology, where do you think the stealth air craft came from? Again, we kept it secret by brain washing the thousands of workers who were in on the scam. \n\n6. The Moon we see every night is really not there along with the planets and stars as well the Planet Killing Asteroids. Those were put there by the evil United States to toy with our minds. \n\n7. Fossils of early homosapiens, homoerectus and earlier models were put their by evil paleontologists, athropoligists, and assorted rock hounds looking to enhance their careers, Creation is the real objective reality. \n\n8. America is a conspiracy and is a fake country and none of us Americans really live here. \n\n9. I was never born so this response to your question is a fake.
495153
"Moon Hoax" proponents claim that the Moon landings of Apollo 11 on July 20, 1969 and subsequent missions never happened, but were instead staged and pre-filmed on Earth. The idea grew significantly in popularity after the release of the movie Capricorn One (1978), which portrays a NASA attempt to fake a landing on Mars, implausibly using a Lunar Module, designed to land on the airless Moon, on a planet with an atmosphere.\n\nIt is possible that a brief sequence in the James Bond movie Diamonds Are Forever (1971) which appears to show a Moon landing being simulated, may coincide with some of the first suggestions of the landings being faked. British playwright Desmond Lowden wrote a play called The News-Benders in 1967 in which all major technological advances since 1945 were shown to have been simulated; the play was televised in January 1968 and showed a Moon landing faked with models.\n\nThe now-defunct Flat Earth Society lodged one of the earliest complaints about the veracity of the Apollo missions (Schadewald 1980) (also see the external link to the Flat Earth Society). They claimed the various "earthrise" photos from Apollo 8, with the Moon in the foreground and the Earth in the background, were fakes. The primary basis of their claim was that it did not square with their belief that the Earth is flat (Newsweek 1969).\n\nIn his book A Man on the Moon, Andrew Chaikin mentions that at the time of Apollo 8's lunar orbit mission in December 1968, such conspiratorial stories were in circulation as rumoured facts. The first published attempt to establish such claims as factual was Bill Kaysing's self-published book We Never Went to the Moon in 1974 (Plait 2002:157), although perhaps the best known is NASA Mooned America by Ralph Rene.\n\nHoax skeptics claim that the Moon landing hoax accusations are conspiracy theories — claims that conspirators in the possession of secret knowledge are misleading the public in pursuit of a hidden agenda. In the Moon Hoax's case the hidden agenda is the United States of America's eagerness to land on the moon before their space race rivals, the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.), who had beaten them into orbit by launching Yuri Gagarin into space in 1961, and achieved several other "firsts" in space exploration.\n\nTo know more about Issues and controversies please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations
889877
all questions about the six apollo lunar landings being fake are non-sense.  nasa got a huge amount of evidence to prove that twelve americans have stepped onto lunar soil, and there is no evidence at all that says they didn't.\n\nthere are six american flags on the moon.  each one has a sleeve across the top.  the flagpole is hinged, and the hinged  part goes thru the sleeve at the top of the flag.  the flags did not wave.  the flags sometimes swung from these rods when the astronauts put the flags on the moon because they moved them from side to side at times and the flags lagged behind some and had to catch up with the rods.\n\nhttp://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5874HR.jpg\n\nhere is a photograph of the flag at the apollo 11 landing site.  you can clearly see the rod in the sleeve across the top of the flag.
451361
i do not beleive any man has ever landed on the moon and there are telescopes powerful enough to see the landing site but even if pics of that came about they would be faked too there is a belt of radioactive gas between the moon and the earth witch no man in a spaceship could pass ecsept neil armstrong of corse yeah right wheva u believe or not it doesnt matter the moon is a useless rock
104019
Oh good grief,  no, of course not. \n\nOf all the crazy consipracy theories out there this one is the silliest. The so-called "evidence" is incredibly, transparently wrong.\n\nAnd no one ever can answer the question that, if the landings were fake, why didn't the Soviets call up out? They have the radar capable of detecting space craft in and leaving Earth orbit, and the equipment to detect the laser ranging devices left on the moon. \n\nSo, why would they cooperate in a hoax that made them look bad. Makes no sense.
131259
They aren't. My brother works at the Keck telescope in Hawai'i, which is run by NASA, and they looked at the moon recently to get some information about possible landing sites for the new missions. But there's not much call to look at the moon any more, since we can get much better pictures from sending spaceprobes there.
462762
Frankly, the conspiracy theory aired on Discovery was damn convincing enough that I now feel man never went to the moon...\n\nThings like no-blast crater, doctored images, insufficient radiation protection etc all point to the fact that it was all but a big hoax
284798
yep - no reason for them not to - the images they shot while on the moon and the movie footage shows that they were not standing anywhere on earth.\n\nPlus, that Saturn 5 stage sitting down at the Houston spaceflight center is just way too big to be a hoax or a dummy object.
121607
Is it really true that man never really walked on the Moon...the picture of the American Flag (the one put there by the Apollo astronauts) is waving (or straight out) in the wind. How could that be possible if there is no atmosphere on the Moon? Was it some sort of optical illusion? If there were only three persons on that trip to the moon and one was Neil Armstrong, one was the other was standing beside him and third one was in the space shuttle then who took the photograph? \nif there were three astronauts on the Apollo missions, and two were on the Moon and the other was in the command module orbiting the Moon (a slight correction to the question at the top of this page, since the Space Shuttle wasn't developed at the time of the Apollo missions), then who took the picture shown on this page? The photos of the two astronauts doing their work on the Moon's surface were taken by an automatic 16 mm Data Acquisition Camera (DAC), which was mounted on the Lunar module which had brought Armstrong and Aldrin to the Moon
823638
Although my wife's father performed fuel calculations for the original Apollo landing, I'll spare you that speech. Instead, I will encourage you to watch two programs. The first show is called Conspiracy Moon Landing that it currently showing on the National Geographic Channel and it pretty much obliterates all of the popular conspiracy theories.\n\nI would also encourage you to watch a movie called Capricorn One. Made it 1978, it is a fictional story about a fake mission to Mars. Although it is a science fiction story, it is a good example of how utterly impossible it would be to fake a moon landing for any length of time.\n\n12 men walked on the moon from 1969 to 1972 and we have neither the resources nor the technology to pull off that big of a hoax for so long. Hundreds of thousands of people have worked on the space program. It would be far easier to put someone on the moon than to try and fake it and keep it secret for nearly 40 years. \n\nThe landings came at a time when our space program was ultra competitive with the former Soviet Union. Remember how big of a deal it was when Sputnik was put into orbit? They had the technology to monitor our moon shots and transmissions. Don't you think they would have called us out if they had evidence that it was all fake? \n\nPerhaps the most definitive proof of our trip to the moon is what we left behind. For the last 35+ years, scientists have been beaming lasers to the moon and measuring the return times. How are they doing this? The beams are reflected back by equipment left on the moon on at 3 different locations.\n\nCase closed.
32339
FACT FACT FACT.\n\nMy physics professor gave the unbeatable argument on this one.  If the USA had lied, the USSR WOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING.  The USSR was very technologically advanced, and it would have taken very little effort on their part to look up and see if there really was a metal box hurling toward the moon sending high-amplitude radio transmissions back to Houston.  If this hadn't been the case, the USSR would have called our bluff, I guarantee you.\n\nIf they didn't doubt the moon landing, why the hell should we?  Defrauding the American people might have been a comparably easy task, but there's no way they could have fooled the USSR.  The USSR did, after all, have the technology to beat us in the first two stages of the space race (the first satelite and the first human in space).
836922
Trust me they did, but let me give you some hoax's and then the explanation for them hey. I have picked 4 big ones that are fairly typical. Its a bit long, but please stick with me :)\n\n1) No stars in the photos:\n\nThe real reason is that when contrasted with the brightness of the astronauts and the lunar surface, the stars are just too dim to register on the photographic emulsion of the camera film. If the camera shutter were held open long enough for the stars to register, everything else would be over-exposed into a white featureless glare. \n\nYou cannot have both visible on the one photograph, so the camera was set for the correct exposure for Buzz Aldrin and the lunar surface, not the stars. When standing on the lunar surface the astronauts could not visually observe the stars in the dark sky, because of the surface glare, they could only see them when standing in shadow. By the same token, if we take a photograph outdoors at night from a brightly illuminated surface, our photograph also would not show any stars in the sky.\n\n2) The flags waving.\n\nThe flag is out and appears to be waving by an extendable rod running through the top of the flag, so that it can be viewed unfurled, and you can see the unnatural rigidity this gives to the top of the flag in the picture. The rod creates the effect of a breeze blowing the flag into that position. Without the supporting rod the flag would just hang limply down and would not reveal the stars and stripes. The rod is not extended the full width of the flag and it looks like a breeze is causing a ripple in the flag.\n\nIt has also been claimed that some video clips show the flag waving in the breeze when it was planted. Not so. The movement of the flag is only because when astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil.\n\n3) 'Wrong' shadows\n\nThe simple fact is that there is more than one light source. The light does not come directly from the Sun and illuminate only the one object in question, as a narrow beam spotlight would in a dark room. It shines on the entire daytime surface, just as it does here on Earth. Therefore it also illuminates the surface, the astronauts themselves, rocks, mountains, the Lander and all the other objects on the surface. \n\nThe reflections from these objects is why there is more than one light source, it is not because there was more than one spotlight used on a film set. It is also worth noting that on the lunar surface the reflected sunlight from the Earth is 68% brighter than that of the full Moon as seen from Earth. \n\nFor more on this question check out badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01\n\nAll the other fake photographs are explained just as easily with a little knowledge, and an understanding of how conditions on the Moon are very different to those here. With no atmosphere to scatter the light, things look a little odd on the Moon, we have a very black sky and a very bright surface. \n\nWe see strong shadows everywhere, and our sense of distance is also fooled because there is no atmosphere to produce the familiar atmospheric haze that creates a distance perspective on Earth. Furthermore, with the gravity being only a sixth of Earth's gravity, things move and behave differently as well. \n\nIt's hard to make straight comparisons, because we cannot, the Moon is just not like the Earth. We have to think differently when interpreting the images from the Moon, and that's what causes the problems, people are not allowing for those differences when looking at the lunar photographs. They are looking at them as if they were taken under normal Earth conditions, and concluding wrongly that there must be something wrong with the photographs.\n\n4) Why doesn't the Hubble Space Telescope provide proof hey\nThe equipment left over by the astronauts is just too small to be seen with the HST. Even the best image we have of the moon is taken of Copernicus crate
278734
*sigh* Once again, I'll link to the Bad Astronomer page debunking the myth that the moon landings were a hoax, mostly for the benefit of mrkit99.\n\nAnd remember, as a rocket scientist I know said, "Of course the moon landings were real! Do you have any idea how much harder it would be to fake them than to actually go there?!?"
946455
Now listen, I remember 1969, and how the Americans were getting so much more world kudos with their space activities than the Russians, and how  p*ssed-off the Russians were that they couldn't keep up.  So if the moon landings were faked, how come the Russians with all their technical resources and enormous motivation to expose a hoax didn't detect it?  Or what amazing new analytical methods are the modern conspiracy theorists using, that the Russians didn't have?\n\nAnd I also remember the earlier Manhattan Project and the hydrogen bomb program.  Despite the huge secrecy, Russia managed to get useful technical information on these projects, both from its own planted agents and from voluntary informants who believed that all scientific knowledge should be shared.  Now try to convince me, or anyone else, that the much more public Apollo Project was so watertight that the Russians never found out it was a fake.