Right.  I know this is controversial, and has been discussed a lot, but I have my theories on this.  I have heard the arguments for and against, but my thoughts are these;\n\nI think it was faked, because the technology simply wasn't available at the time.  When you think of the accidents with far more advanced spacecrafts, such as shuttles, which have exploded, and compare them to the crafts being used then, it doesn't make sense that they were able to pull it off over and over again.\n\nWhy haven't we been back in all these years?  There were clear motives for faking it back then.  Also, why didn't the Russians do it?  There was a space race after all, and the Russians managed to get a man in space.  OK, so even if the Americans managed it first, you'd have thought the Russians would have done it too.  They didn't do it because it couldn't be done.  Check out this site.\n\nhttp://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
134267
All the world governments conspired to cover up the fact that the moon landings did not happen because they needed to develop the necessary rocket technology for war. Holland teaches their children in school that it did not happen. They were in the position to know. Do your own research on that one.\nLook a the book called 'Full Moon' by Michael Light, June 1999. There are six pages in the center of the book that contain 'rectangular suns'. All of the pictures that were ever in dispute are in the book. Use your common sense and look for your self. \nLook at the capsule, if there were parachutes at one end and a heat shield at the other, how did they transfer to the lunar lander?\nThey flew all the way to the moon with two seventy-seven pound computers that only had 48k memory each, uh huh, I've got a bridge to sell you.\nAnybody that has knowledge of thermal dynamics can tell you that the cooling systems that the astro-nots wore would not dissipate enough heat to keep them cool. NASA insists that they were water cooled units, guess what it takes an atmosphere for evaporation to take place. Next what about the lack of a blast zone on the moon by the lander that supposedly created 10,000 pounds of thrust.\nIf they actually did it 35 years ago why will it take them until 2018 to do it again?\nI've been studying this for years and I could go on for hours. Lastly I'll leave you with this thought, why did Walter Cronkite always end the show about a mission with these words? "Brought to you through the magic of Hollywood"\nIt couldn't have happened and it didn't, nothing to get your shorts in a bunch over. \nBut thank you for keeping an open mind, name calling is never nice and too many will call you unpatriotic or stupid or other less desirable names. Don't let yourself be bullied by politics.\nKeep the faith and keep asking the hard questions.\nYours truly,\nMycroft
413181
Yes, there is quite a bit of equipment on the moon that was left behind during the six moon landings.  This inclues the "moon car", the descent stages of the Lunar Modules, and numerous experiments.\n\n And, there are several crash sites where the Saturn IV-B boosters were crashed intentionally onto the moon in order to produce seismic vibrations for the seismometers left on the moon by the astronauts.\n\nThe problem is that none of the equipment is large enough to be seen by telescopes.  At that distance, even the Hubble Space Telescope cannot resolve objects less that three or four meters in size.  Nothing we've left behind is large enough.\n\nP.S.  I think "spacejohn77" was referring to the article linked below.
167868
The US stopped for a few reasons:\n-The war in Vietnam.  'nuff said\n-We started to worry about solar radiation.  If one of the moon missions was just one month later than it was the men on the moon would have recieved a leathal dose of radaition.  We did not really want to have corpses on the moon.\n\nThe Soviet Union never landed:\n-Their manned moon rocket never had a successfull lift-off\n-The main guy in thier space program died\n-Political reasons\n\nThe US has not been back:\n-Been focused on low earth manned-missions, and robotic exploration, it tends to be cheaper and safer\n-Space race over, hard to justfy politically.\n-Robotic exploration is improving, hard to justify scientifically.
290343
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 :-)
574283
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?
103677
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.
194
Yes. I believe the original idea was to build a rocket base from which to explore the solar system. But somebody realised the same thing could be done from Earth via an orbiting space station for a fraction of the cost.\nThe only other reasons for going to the moon were - \n1. To stop the Russians setting up a military base there.\n2. To collect moon rocks.\nWhen the US realised that a Russian moon base wasn't practical, and they had souvenired as many moon rocks as they were ever likely to need, they never bothered to go back.
574241
I know it's a hoax because they filmed it in my backyard.  My parents had a place that had craters and a lot of white cheese and NASA asked us if they could use it for the astronaut's training...we agreed and then we found out that the astronauts were falling in the craters and putting flags in them and eating the cheese and saying they were on the moon.  We had to move away due to the embarrasment to our family and we were in hiding for many years.  It's only now I can tell you this because it's been over 30 yrs but if you don't hear from me anymore, it will be because NASA came back.  To verify my story, just ask Al Gore..he made global warming with a big window fan and now he is trying to blow it everywhere.
64138
no...they didnt land on the moon at all and lot of evidence points that the moon landings were faked\n1,,to reach moon the astonauts had to pass beyond the van allen belt.which is a protective barrier of charged particles cosmic rays etc..beyond which they wud b exposed to intense harmful cosmic rays...thir aircraft apollo 11 had only a thin lining of lead for protection which is not at all sufficient...so it is suggested dat apollo 11 just cirled up before reachuing the van allen belt\n2,,moreover the photographic film wud hav been clearly damaged while passing thru the belt as it does it if its passeed thru an ordinary xray machine\n3,,the camera that the astros used i.e. hasselblad wree old fashioned and changing their photographic plates is a very tricky process requiring handling of delicate plates n nimble fingers...this task was impossible 4 the astros as they wore thick rubber gloves\n4,,one of their pics shows the terrain behind aldrin fading away into the horizon while there is no atmosphere on moon to cause such an effect\n4,,more over in one of the pics some suspiciuos equipments reflection can be seen on aldrins visor..it can cl4early be seen againt the darkness of the horizonwhere one might expectto glimpse a piece of film equipment if it had been shot in a film studio\n5,,moreover the absence of stars in the pics,lack of scortch marksand a crater under the lunar module which wud hav been formed by its landing are suspiciously missing\n\nhence too much to prove that the landings were faked \n\nits the second time i have ansewered this question...n it was the best answer
443918
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
598644
My wife's father did perform fuel calculations for the original Apollo landing, but I will spare you that speach. 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\nThe I would also encourage you to watch a movie called Capricon One. Made it 1978, it is a fictional movie 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 simply don't have the resources nor 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 they they would have called is out if they have 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 30+ years, scientist have been beaming lasers to the moon and meansuring the return times. How are they doing this? Because the beams are reflected back by equipment left on the moon on in onto 1 but 3 different locations.\n\nCase closed.
440085
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!
205224
Think about it, kiddo. Do you know how far we are from the nearest star? It would take generations of alien pilots on an uncertain journey to reach Earth. \n\nInterstellar flight is impractical, especially since they would have no way of knowing we would even be here.\n\nWhat you "came to know" was just another conspiracy theory pumped out by UFOLOGISTS or, as they are more commonly known, morons. \n\nUnless you see physical evidence of something so implausible, then you're just wasting your life on this stuff.
246601
You commented :Could a huge conspiracy like that, which would involve thousands of people, really be kept secret!?\n\nThis should be the biggest evidence AGAINST a conspiracy theory, at least as it applies to a missile or something similar, blowing up the Pentagon instead of the commercial airliner.  The Pentagon is close to several busy traffic routes; these roads were packed with commuters at the time of the crash. There were thousands of people in the office buildings nearby. All of these people became eyewitnesses and if there were any conspiracy, they'd ALL have to have been in on it.  How could it be possible to get every single one of those people to play along?  I just don't get it.\n\nPS--- I was one of the thousands of eyewitnesses and I watched the plane actually hit the Pentagon and even though I've told people my story, they still cling to these conspiracy theories... go figure.
98372
UFO propaganda...Real or not, US took advantage of this issue to spy on Russia. It involves Starlin's death and why US only knows a little bit of Russia's future and direction after he died. This was the time when spy plane U2 evolved heightening the UFO issue. US tried to hide their U2 under this blanket of confusion until it got shot down by Russia 4 years into the program.
233010
OF COURSE THE SEPTEMBER 11 INCIDENTS WHERE ACTUALLY FAKE JUST LIKE THE MOON LANDING . AMERICA AGAIN FOOLED THE WORLD.\n\nTHERE IS EVEN A VIDEO ABOUT THIS .\n\nTHE MAIN REASONS THAT THEY SAY ARE AS FOLLOWS\n\n1.THE AIRCRAFTS THAT STRIKED THE WTC TOWERS WERE NOT HAVING ANY WINDOWS WHICH CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THEY ARE NOT PASSENGER AIRCRAFTS . PROBABLY MILITARY CARGOS .\n\n2. WHEN THE VIDEO IS ZOOMED IN WE CAN CLEARLY SEE SOME THING THAT IS ATTACHED TO THE BELLY OF THE AIRCRAFT .NO PASSENGER AIRCRAFT WILL HAVE SOME THING THIS ATTACHED TO ITS FUSELAGE .WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT IS NOT A PASSENGER AIRCRAFT .\n\n3. THERE IS AN SMALL EXPLOSION ON BOTH THE AIRCRAFTS JUST BEFORE STRIKING INSIDE THE WTC TOWER . THIS CAN BE CLEARY SEEN IF THE VIDEOS ARE ZOOMED . \n\n4.IN THE VIDEO THAT SHOWS THE PENTAGON ATTACK THERE IS NO AIRCRAFT AT ALL SHOWN IN THE VIDEO .ONLY A SUDDEN EXPLOSION IS SHOWN .ALSO THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE PIECE OF AIRCRAFT WRECKAGE ON THE SITE EVEN IN THE VIDEOS THAT WERE TAKEN IMMEDIATLY AFTER THE INCIDENT .\n\n5.ALSO A STUDY HAS CONFIRMED THAT IF A BOEING 757 WITH THE SAID AMOUNT OF FUEL CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON THE DAMAGE WOULD BE VERY MUCH MORE THAN THIS . ANALYSISTS HAVE CALCULATED THE IMPACT STRENGTH AND THE CAPABILITY OF THE MATERIALS WITH WHICH PENTAGON IS CONSTRUCTED .\n\nAMAERICA JUST WANTED A REASON TO ATTACK TALIBAN .\n\nOTHERWISE JUST IMAGINE , IF THE TALIBAN HAD BEEN ACTUALLY BEHIND THIS THEN THEY WOULD HAVE SURELY CLAIMED THE RESPONSIBILITY .\n\nGEORGE.W.BUSH IS A TRAITOR . HE EVEN FOOLED THE AMERICANS ALSO . JUST LIKE NASA FOOLED THE AMERICANS AND REST OF THE WORLD BY SAYING THAT THEY LANDED ON THE MOON AND SHOWED MANY FAKE VIDEOS .\n\nAMERICANS WILL HAVE REMEMBER ONE THING -- WHATEVER YOU DO -- SOME IS WATCHING IT FROM ABOVE -- GOD .YOU WILL BE PUNISHED .
273151
of course what you have seen is real and dont let any one to tell you otherwise.however there is debate among ufologist and et socities that black triangular ships are us secret military ships.this technology was given to them by a race of aliens called greys,however new evidence is suggesting this technology along with the design for stealth bomber(F117) was given to them by a race is called annunakies,i was lucky enough to see pleadian scout ship on two different ocasions.i can provide you with some clear pictures of ufo,and few race of ets who are well known to our open minded scientist.as far as NASA,they are fully aware of them and if you wish provide me with an email address so i can send you a few picture along with nasa footage of ufos from international space stations.a lot of scientists in nasa are fully aware of this.but information in this regard is being suppresed by big guys,if you are interested buy an ordinary telescope and spend a few nights watching moon.im sure you will see with your own eyes more than enough evidence of their existance,do a little bit of reaserch about et bases on the moon.keep wondering,you are in a right direction,may peace and love be upon you and your family