Do you really believe that the astronaunts had landed or reached the moon?
542295
You conspiracy theorists simply can't get enough to give it up.\n\nDo you think the Soviets would have allowed us to get away with such a lie for so long and not expose it?\n\nIf the the U.S.'s most secretive President in history can't conceal the NSA's wiretapping, how do you think anyone could have pulled off what you suggest for so long?\n\nYes, I do believe we went to and landed on the moon, and brought rocks back, too.
505304
yes the moon landing was geniune. when i was a child i went to the science museum in london and there they have samples of moon rock that the astronauts bought back with them. there are also some photos that they had taken. so scientific fact! hope this helps. you can go onto the science museum (london) website to check this out. j
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
654103
While I've never heard that, I don't doubt that it was said. But it is false. Rumors like that start all the time. There has never been anything found on the moon. No alien structures, no "glass domes", nothing like that. Maybe they were seeing a weird inactive volcano of something. I don't know what it actually was, because like I said I've never heard that.
257305
It makes for a good tale, but yes, we did land on the moon. I have read all of the theories but WE WERE ON THE MOON!
1022056
The moon landing was an actual event. I don't see why people have to keep insisting it's all staged. I mean it was a huge triumph for the US and people aren't even proud of it?!
831742
Actually, what happened was that Buzz was supposed to be the first one to touch the moon. But Armstrong beat him into the suit, so he stepped out first. Buzz had the camera and yes came out after him. What they did, and really I dont know why ppl havent considered this because it is so obvious, but what they did was they went back and filmed Armstrong coming out of the capsule. Then, when they left, they parked the rover in a spot where the camera on the rover (which NASA controlled) could film them leaving. But seriously folks... this has been beaten around the bush enough, leave it alone, because we will all know the truth in 2015 when we go back. Have patience!
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".
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
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.
545080
I'm going to make the (probably correct) assumption that you're talking about the US manned missions to the moon. We have gone to the moon and people who think we haven't are just very paranoid and naive. People who attempt to convince others that we didn't rely on people's ignorance and mistrust of the US and it's government. What they mainly do is present a lot of situations that you and I can readily test here on Earth that is "proof" that we didn't go to the moon. The problem is that things don't exactly work the same way in a low-gravity, zero-atmosphere, moon. The usual arguments and their debunkings can be found at a lot of sites but i particularly like this one:\n\nhttp://www.badastronomy.com\n\nOne of my personal favorite reasons why it probably wasn't a hoax was becaues of the Soviet Union. The Soviets had satellites, lots of satellites. They also had lots of observatories and lots of spys in the US government. If it was a hoax, they would have easily caught us and had proof. The spacecraft would have had to orbit earth while the "hoax" played out and the Soviets would have easily caught it. \n\nBut theres no convincing some people.
311873
Because we really did land on the Moon.
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.
1099240
I admit I have been wondering the same thing myself--espicially after seeing a documentary posing doubts we landed on the moon.  The photographic evidence posed on the show did give me some thought, being I do have experience in professional photography.\n\nThe LEM photos: That thing purportedly landed on the moon, firing retro rockets with enough blast power to burn the moon surface under it to shiny black glass.....yet the area looks undistrubed!  All that violent firepower had to have raised moon dust all over the place.....yet look how shiny and dirt free the LEM landing pads looked.  Espically take note of NO moon dust collected inside the landing foot pods themselves.\n\nThe Apollo mission cameras were state of the art of their time, with perfectly etched "crosses" on the lenses to assist with picture composition.  I still see the astronaut photo where one of those crosses IS BLOCKED OUT by the guy's shoulder--where it should've been OVERLAPPED to appear onto his arm/shoulder!!\n\nThe sun light / angle theory gets complicated.....but it clearly made sense to me....and gave rise to suspicions.  \n\nThe video of a golf ball getting shot out into space was good PR, but take note how the fine moon dust stirred up by the lunar rover merely falls back to the surface....when it should fly off into the air.\n\nThen there's the Van Allen belt explanation: stuff we learned back in fifth grade: a deadly belt of radiation, stretching hundreds of miles between us and the Moon.  You'd have to travel in a ship with walls of at least five feet thick of lead to safely shoot through it....the Apollo space vehicle walls were....what....maybe two inches (if that) thick???  And our guys never cooked like chicken in a microwave???? The Van Allen belt emits enough deadly radiation to singe fry the Apollo capsule electronics in about 2 minutes and cook the astronauts in about another minute past that.  So how did our guys do it?\n\nThe Space Shuttle: purportedly capable of travel to the Moon and back....yet it's NEVER been done.  Why? The thing can carry enough fuel, food / supplies and other life support for such safe travel.  In fact, it was one of the Shuttle program objectives...that got put on the back burner....and not likely due to "budget" or "safety" concerns.\n\nHowever, all this "evidence" is of conjecture; you have to be your own judge on if we faked the Moon landings, until we get a deathbed confession by one of the surviving astronauts to confirm we DID fake the landings.  Until then, it makes for great coffee-cafe debate amongst good friends.
325274
I believe the FIRST landing was faked, as it was almost impossible to design and build the equipment in such a short (relatively speaking) period between the time President Kennedy asked NASA to do it and the end of the decade, about eight years. Remember, they didn't have sophisticated computers  in 1960 like they do now, so a lot of their calculations on trajectory etc. were not as accurate as they are today.
190294
Yes, the US landed on the moon in 1969!
1029928
Several people have written books trying to disprove our landing on the moon.  I have not actually researched this, but for one thing, supposedly there is no dust on the moon like the ton of dust our astraunats walked through that day.  The photos have been disputed as made up and I believe our corupt government is capable of pulling this off.....)(