Do you think the Americans landing on the moon was/is a conspiracy?
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.
651910
Yes.\n\nAs for the second part, a lot of people just make up conspiracy theories to sound smart or because they simply don't understand what happens in space.
96954
Yes, they walked on the moon. And yes, some people insist they did not--that it was all a huge conspiracy. You seem shocked at this, but remember, there are still folks maintaining that the Earth is flat or only 6,000 years old. (In fact, the flat-Earthers are one of the groups claiming the moon landing is a hoax--after all, the astronauts took photos showing a round Earth, and they know that isn't true, so it must be a hoax!) You don't actually expect evidence to convince people like this, do you? Any piece of evidence that we could present would simply be, to them, a part of the conspiracy. A good conspiracist can incorporate any piece of information into the big conspiracy without even blinking. \n\nThere have been several books written to promote this claim, and more articles. There was even a movie with a similar plot, Capricorn One, starring O.J. Simpson, among others (1977). The difference was that in the movie, the fake landing was for Mars, not the moon. One group of flat-Earthers actually claims O.J. was framed by the government for exposing the fake moon landings through his part in this movie! As Peter Huston, the writer and skeptic who mentioned this to me, deadpanned, "Apparently, the government moves slowly on framing its enemies."\n\nBob Mulford, of the Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York, wrote a short article for the group's newsletter, The WHY-Files, discussing a recent book claiming the whole thing was a hoax. Apparently a reviewer in a technical magazine aimed at radio astronomers actually gave the book a more-or-less positive review! He noted that the reviewer bought into one of the author's arguments, saying it was obviously a hoax because the photos brought back by the astronauts showed their footprints in the moon's soil. The author claimed (and the reviewer apparently agreed) that dry sand doesn't leave footprints, and since we all know there is no water on the moon, that proves these photographs must have been faked on a movie set here on Earth. \n\nMulford points out in his article that the Moon's surface is not covered with beach sand. He notes: "On the earth, sand comes from rocks ground to small pieces by the ocean, or from rocks that were weathered by freezing water. In fact, a little thought shows we should not expect the Moon to be like an desert on the Earth. The astronauts reported that the Moon was covered by an extremely fine soil which compacted easily. They likened it to talcum powder. This soil was produced by a rain of micrometeorites that the Earth's surface is protected from by our atmosphere. It is easy to do an experiment that shows that this type of surface would leave nice footprints. I didn't have any talcum powder, but I did recently produce a large pile of fine dust from sanding spackling compound used to patch a plaster wall. It leaves nice footprints." Mulford adds: "Incidentally, if the Moon walks actually were a hoax carried out in an earthly landscape that looked like the Moon, it would have been done in a dry desert and we wouldn't see footprints in the photos." In other words, the author of that book provided evidence against himself rather than proving the moon landing was a hoax! \n\nIn 1994, the Fortean Times had an article calling the moon landing into question. The article began, "The idea that we went to the Moon--and that we were successful in our Apollo endeavours--is so firmly embedded in the cultural lives of most people on this planet, that to voice the opinion that this might be untrue smacks of paranoia." I can't argue with that! The article goes on to claim, "In actual fact, mankind has no proof at all that we ever set foot on the Moon, other than the photographs that NASA has elected to publish." Which is simply untrue. We have the photos, the video, the audio, the testimony of all the men and women who worked on the various projects, the samples brought back, e
78971
they didn't 1969. Sure think about it - how could they have? It was just a conspiricy to show up russians because they had got a man in space. That was the great thing that happened. The first real person on the moon was not until 1974.
1098156
I can tell you that I worked with some people who were down in Florida for the Apollo 13 launch, and they saw a very big machine take off up into the sky a few miles away from them!  Pretty hard to fake that!\n\nPeople who defend arguments that the moon landings were faked are being silly.  But what I find outrageous is that media people encourage these folks because they simply love to air any form of controversy that can be cooked up, no matter how nonsensical.  I guess it brings in more viewers.  But it is doing great harm by making some folks believers in what should be recognized as nonsense.
608588
Yes, the moon landings were real. Some people still maintain that the Earth is flat - no one takes them seriously; no one should take the 'moon landing is a hoax' seriously either.\n\nFirst, we have material evidence: rocks from the moon, photographs taken from there, the word of thousands and thousands of people who worked on the project, etc. Even more damning, the astronauts left a prism mirror on the moon that anyone with a medium laser can target to see the laser reflected! And do you really think the Russians wouldn't have raised a stink if any of their, oh, dozen thousands physicists had found something dodgy? Or do you think they all failed to know about something like 'heat and air on the moon'?\n\nThen we have so much stuff in space now, like thousands of satellites, probes on Mars, and even outside the solar system, what is so unlikely about landing on the moon, which is incredibly close to us, astronomically speaking? It's only 3 days away!\n\nAll the arguments from conspiracy theorists have been easily rebuked; the three sites at the end give a good rundown. The most commons were:\n\n- There is a flag waving! there is no air on the moon! Hoax!\nHum. The flag is not moving, notice? It *looks* like it's in the middle of a wave, because it was built like that! The NASA, incredibly enough, figured out that there was no wind on the moon, and that a limp flag would be a tad disappointing, so simply attached the flag to perpendicular poles in that position. Try it in your garden, it will take 5 minutes.\n\n- The photos are too good! That's not possible!\nNo, they took hundreds of pictures, and you only see the good ones, just like any amateur photographer will tell you. \n\n- The footprint doesn't look at all like the one you leave in sand!\nThat's because the moon is not covered in sand... Sand is created by erosive forces grinding up rock, like the sea or plate tectonics. The moon has no erosive force, since it's dry and not volcanic. The dust there is rocks vaporised by meteoric impacts, which looks a lot like flour. Put a heap of flour on the ground and watch your footprint: very similar, no?\n\nSo, no, the government is not involved in *this* coverup :-)
1182229
I think they did it. A friend of mine directed me to lunaranomalies.com and they had some interesting theories, yet each of these amateur theories were disproved. Look at it this way. In 1969 the americans and the russians were locked in a desperate bid to get into orbit and ultimately the moon. "Journey beyond selene" by Jeffery Kluger brilliantly documented this. The russian premier publicly mocked the americans and their various failures at even hitting the moon with a basic rocket. Enter 1969 and the pictures of Aldrin and Armstrong on the moon. No comment from Russia. They didn't even televise it. If there was even a hint of evidence that it was faked, the russians would have been all over it like a rash. If it was faked they did a really good job. A secret like that could never be kept, and not one reputable scientist has challenged it. All we have are diehard and paranoid lay people looking for attention. If you look up Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin on the net you might find some hilarious footage of the day he left a conference to be accosted by one such person. He knocked him flat with one punch! Hilarious. Selene is the greek word for moon.
1151822
How's this for a conspiracy theory.\n\nhttp://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/
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)
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).
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.
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.
324293
I wonder how many people out there are too lazy to do some real research and read the scientific facts proving that man has landed on and partially explored the Moon. Here's a good place to start: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html  On this website each and every "fact" claiming that the Moon landings were all faked are ripped to shreds.\n\nMy favorite "fact" is about the 'waving' flag on the airless Moon. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand how the flag can be made to appear to be waving. Duh!\n\nNobody from the Faked Moon Landing bunch has ever answered my question about several hundred pounds of rock and soil brought back that research groups AROUND THE WORLD unanimously agreed was non-terrestrial.\n\nGod should be spelled B-I-G B-A-N-G\nPBrax@netscape.com
253137
If the US gov't had lied, the USSR would have called their bluff.  It is an easy thing, perhaps, for the US gov't to fool the American people, but fooling the Soviets would have been impossible.  That they never refuted the claim is a powerful confirmation of the fact of the moon landing.
1018040
How about the great moon hoax? United States of America faked all the landings on the moon in the late 60's and early 70's to scare the Russians from messing with us. \n\nOr the one where the US government has crashed two planes into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and faked a crash landing in PA?
71109
A plane hit the Pentagon.  They have proof.  Are you one of those idiots who thinks everything is a conspiracy or are you just a kook!!
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.