why do people believe the moon landing happened?
546884
Because we really did land there in July 1969. And 5 more times in 1970-1972. The flag flutters because the Astronauts are shaking it as they push the pole into the ground. It never flutters when the pole is not being touched by one of the astronauts.
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!
68690
During the 60's, we spent a lot of money to get to the moon ahead of the Soviets. It was more political and less science.\n\nOnce we got there, we confirmed that it was just a giant hunk of rock.\n\nNow, it's more of a "been there, done that" attitude. It's expensive to get there, and there's no real reason to go back. It's like paying money to take a second vacation to the middle of a desert.
18249
Those deeds aren't recognized by any country. That came about because in some UN resolution they decided that no COUNTRY could claim the moon as it's own, or any territory on it. But, they didn't mention individuals or companies... so theoreticaly, a person can claim a peice of the moon, but no court or anything would defend that claim. It's been done before too, but lots of people.
418092
Phil Plait's website http://www.badastronomy.com as mentioned by others has gobs of info, but really the "moon hoax" junk really started in earnest in about 1978, coinciding with the release of a movie who's plot was about how NASA must fake a manned Mars mission.  The film, "Capricorn 1" was released in 1978.\n\nAlso, if you are actually doing a report on the 60's and the moon landing, you probably want to steer clear of the "conspiracy," as it really is quackery of the highest caliber.
132360
The moon landings were real and there is overwhelming evidence for that fact. The "evidence" the hoax side always presents are truly laughable for those that have a little more knowledge in their brains than those that obsess about that Fox tv mokumentary. \nThey say that when the flag moves in some footage it is "proof" that it did so because it was blowing in the studio. What one can clearly see is the flag moving because an astronaut is moving it. \nAlso the absence of stars in the photos are supposed to be "proof" it is a fake. Anyone with a little knowledge of how a camera works can tell you why there are no stars. The moon is pretty bright. Right? In fact on the surface of the moon the sun shines twice as bright as it does on earth during the brightest of days. Now imagine standing in such intense light. If they had set their cameras to expose the, by comparison, extremely faint stars instead of the surface of the moon the film in the cameras would have recieved so much light the film would have melted, ruining the cameras. The purpose of the Apollo missions were to take pictures of the moon. Not the stars. We can take pictures of them from earth. Also stars would have been the easiest thing in the world to fake it the landing had been a fake. With a $25 billion budget you would think NASA could have afforded a script supervisor...\nI could go on and on and on but I have answered this question so many times. I wish people could just stop asking it. The only ones that claim the landings were fake are those that are really bored and have way too much time on their hands.
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".
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.
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
806648
There have been documented cases of stigmata, but as for the other, I don't know.\n\nThere have been several documented cases of stigmata, and many others that were unable to be determined one way or the other - they could neither prove fraud, nor authenticate it.  But as there are people who believe the moon landing was a hoax, there will always be those who believe the stigmata is too.
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)
411459
its true that the Van Allen radiation belt circles the earth. some believe that the radiation present is enough to damage astronaughts travelling through it. this leads to the question of how american astronaughts got to the moon. this is the main reason people believe the moon landing was a hoax, however, the effects of the Van Allen radiation belt have not been studied enough to provide any conclusive evidence on just how much damage it will inflict on an individual. nontheless, many scientists have com to the conclusion the it is just too powerful for any human to survive travelling through.
878593
Yes, some people say that, and some people are retarded. They don't do that because A) Why even warrant such stupid accusations with a response or action? B) These people claim it was all staged in a studio and they would just say the same thing about any footage of the flag on the moon.
190294
Yes, the US landed on the moon in 1969!
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.
900297
Actually I didn't know it but I suspect there was a reason for this.  It is the very same reason that I didn't know that the moon landing was a fake or that Elvis was still alive,,,it didn't happen and isn't true.  \n\nThis is more of the same simple minded conspiracy drivel that has been disproven time and time again but still has some foot hold on the simple minded of the world.\n\nAlmost half of these conspiracy stories have been created by college students to track the publics level of acceptance of idiocy and/or as a prank but but you poor silly chumps keep them flying right and left and go on babbling about "falling into footprint", as if you have any idea of what you are writing.  \n\nGive it a rest or find something else if you wish to be entertaining.  This has run its course.  All the retarded listeners are on board with you and the rest of us know better.  \n\nBegone!
188723
Several. Acouple of the key reasons was because the flag was waving. There's no wind in space. Also, when they were hopping around on the moon, they weren't going any higher than what they would have on Earth. They were merely going in slow-motion. Also, between Earth and moon there is the Van Allen belt, which contains radiation. Today NASA says that we can't go to the moon because we don't have the technology to safely pass through the radiation. The reason the moon landing was faked was because we were in the Cold War which harbored the space race. The Soviets were beating us so we needed something that they wouldn't be able to top.