Was the moon landing a fake?
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.
852611
YOU ARE RIGHT.\nAmerica is making fool, they never landed on moon, it is all fake story.
318205
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
21288
They DID land on the moon. See the sources.
814259
No. I saw the film. \n\nIt is possible that I just imagined seeing this film, but this is just a conspiracy by those who believe that the moon is made of cheese.
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?!
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".
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.
762507
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\nhttp://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5875HR.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.
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
1047407
Of course not.  There is no evidence what so ever to support this fact.  One conspiracy theory I've heard is that in the photo of the moon landing, you can see a prop marked with the letter C in the foreground.  According to proponents of this theory, the C is the type of mark used in theatre to organize props.\n\nUnfortunately, the so called c is obviously just a shadow on a rock.  And in prop work, the props are not marked with letters.\n\nThe moon landing was an important event in US history from a Cold War satnpoint.  At this period, the US and the USSR were competing in many arenas, of which the space program was just one.  Faking the moon landing would never have worked.  The USSR would not have fallen for it.\n\nAlso, about the flag "waving:"  The flag on the moon is made of metal formed into the shape of a moving flag.  It does not move, it simply appears to stand up as in wind.
573697
This website completely and scientifically debunks each and every one of the so-called "proofs" that the manned moon landings were hoaxes -->\nhttp://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
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
851278
Cartman - of course men walked on the moon.\n\nIgnoring all the tosh that the TV programme came up with (which has been shot down in flames so many times now I've lost count) and the fact that some people on here seem to be happy to believe any old rubbish without so much as a cursory look at the evidence, there are three things that clinch it for me.\n\n1. The moon rock that was brought back is different from anything anywhere else on Earth and has been portioned out to so many different universities and research labs that someone by now would have said that the rock was hoaxed.\n\n2. NASA employed thousands of people during the Apollo missions. None of them (other than one or two nut-cases who are trying to make a name or, more likely a bit of fast cash) have said that it was all a hoax. Don't you think that far more people would have come out and said something by now.\n\n3. Last, but absolutely not least, the Apollo missions left an experiment on the surface of the moon that allows an Earth-bound laser to be fired at it and reflected back to Earth so that the distance from Earth to Moon can be measured with extreme accuracy. I believe this measurement is taken with monotonous regularity. How would this be possible unless one of the astronauts set the reflector up on the surface of the moon?\n\nSo to answer your questions.\n\nThe kit they used may look like it came from Blue Peter, but then so did the ships that first crossed the Pacific or the Atlantic (how about Heyerdahl's balsawood raft Kon-Tiki ?)\n\nDon't get misled by the old computing power routine. It is perfectly possible to achieve many, many things without the aid of a computer. All a computer does is to speed up the processes. We are all losing sight of this fact as we get wrapped up in technology.\n\nDon't know what you mean by never attempted it again. The Apollo missions landed 12 men on the moon - what could be benefited by going again?  If you go back to my point 2, the amount of money required for the Apollo missions was colossal - NASA's funding was massively reduced and focus shifted to reusable space craft (the shuttle), and manned satellite stations (SkyLab) as the next step towards exploration further afield.\n\nIt has been proved a zillion and one times that the flag "fluttered" because it was wired to make it stand up. As there is no atmosphere on the moon (and therefore no air resistance), once the flag wire was touched or let go it continued to flex backwards and forwards (ie. it fluttered).\n\nWe have a tendency to underestimate the capability of previous generations. Thats why we have people who say aliens built the pyramids and space astronauts built Macchu Picchu. Let's (for once) celebrate the ingenuity and undeniable bravery of the men who risked their lives in the pursuit of exploration.
1077212
It wasn't faked. I agree, the technology involved was bare bones but still capable. Here are some quotes that help counter some of the conspiracy theories:\n\nIn some photos, the crosshairs appear to be behind objects, rather than in front of them where they should be, as if the photos were altered.\n\n        * In photography, the light white color (the object behind the crosshair) makes the black object (the crosshair) invisible due to saturation effects in the film emulsion. The film particles that ought to have been black were exposed by light from the adjacent brightly lit particles. Ironically, this saturation effect would not happen if the crosshairs were drawn on in post, and so is evidence of genuine photos. Attempting to alter photos that already have crosshairs would make the compositing process far more difficult.\n\nThe quality of the photographs is implausibly high.\n\n        * The astronauts were trained in the use of their gear, and shots and poses were planned in advance as part of the mission. NASA selected only the best photographs for release to the public, and some of the photos were cropped to improve their composition. There are many badly exposed, badly focused and poorly composed images amongst the thousands of photos that were taken by the Apollo Astronauts. Many can be seen at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Photos were taken on high-quality Hasselblad cameras with Zeiss lenses, using 70 mm medium format film.\n\nThere are no stars in any of the photos, and astronauts never report seeing any stars from the capsule windows. \n\n         *Stars are also never seen in Space Shuttle, Mir, International Space Station Earth observation photos, or even sporting events that take place at night. The sun in the Earth/Moon area shines as brightly as on a clear noon day on Earth, so cameras used for imaging these things are set for daylight exposure, with quick shutter speeds in order to prevent overexposing the film. The dim light of the stars simply does not have a chance to expose the film.\n\nhe color and angle of shadows and light are inconsistent.\n\n        * Shadows on the Moon are complicated because there are several light sources: the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon itself. \n\n The Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.\n\n        * There is no atmosphere to efficiently couple lunar surface heat to devices such as cameras not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism. \n\nThe launch rocket produced no visible flame.\n\n        * Hydrazine (a fuel) and dinitrogen tetroxide (an oxidizer) were the Lunar Module propellants, chosen for their reliability; they ignite hypergolically –upon contact– without a spark. Hypergolic propellants happen to produce a nearly transparent exhaust. Hypergolic fuels are also used by several space launchers: the core of the American Titan, the Russian Proton, the European Ariane 1 through 4 and the Chinese Long March, and the transparency of their plumes is apparent in many launch photos.\n\nThe flag placed on the surface by the astronauts flapped despite there being no wind on the Moon.\n\n        * The astronauts were moving the flag into position, causing motion. Since there is no air on the Moon to provide friction, these movements caused a long-lasting undulating movement seen in the flag. There was a rod extending from the top of the flagpole to hold the flag out for proper display. The fabric's rippled appearance was due to its having been folded during flight and gave it an appearance which could be mistaken for motion in a still photograph.\n\nThese are only a few quotes. They all seem much more convincing then the arguments the conspiracy theorists present.
190294
Yes, the US landed on the moon in 1969!
151208
Six --- Apollos 11,12,14,15,16 and 17\n\nFor those few simpletons who still insist that the manned lunar landings were faked, here are a number of websites that totally blow away that entire pot of idiocy:\n\nhttp://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations\n\nwww.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations\n\nIt takes time and thought to get through the data presented, so it's not as easy as leaping to the easier conclusion that everything was faked.