do you think man has really been to the moon or was it a government form of propaganda?
144996
Yes, I believe man has really visited the moon. Propaganda for what purpose? To beat the Russians? Please don't drink any kool-aid.
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.
161872
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
78332
There's always been heavy debate as to whether or not we've actually been to the moon, etc. and there is actual evidence that we haven't. maybe what you're seeing is a farce, maybe it's just some scientific anomaly. Who outside of the space program can say for sure?
221512
there is a rumor going around that the moon landing was a hoax.  Read this, then believe what you want:
946455
Now listen, I remember 1969, and how the Americans were getting so much more world kudos with their space activities than the Russians, and how  p*ssed-off the Russians were that they couldn't keep up.  So if the moon landings were faked, how come the Russians with all their technical resources and enormous motivation to expose a hoax didn't detect it?  Or what amazing new analytical methods are the modern conspiracy theorists using, that the Russians didn't have?\n\nAnd I also remember the earlier Manhattan Project and the hydrogen bomb program.  Despite the huge secrecy, Russia managed to get useful technical information on these projects, both from its own planted agents and from voluntary informants who believed that all scientific knowledge should be shared.  Now try to convince me, or anyone else, that the much more public Apollo Project was so watertight that the Russians never found out it was a fake.
176672
"Was the Apollo moon landing a hoax?"\nThe article starts out,\n"Yes, they walked on the moon. And yes, some people insist they did not--that it was all a huge conspiracy. "\nhttp://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmoonhoax.html
829831
A remote control camera was mounted on the leg of the lunar lander on each of the six moon landings.\n\n1) Twelve 12 American astronauts have walked on the moon.\n\nApollo 11: Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin\nApollo 12: Pete Conrad & Alan Bean\nApollo 13: << failed to land on the moon >>\nApollo 14: Alan Shepard & Edgar (Ed) Mitchell\nApollo 15: David Scott & James Irwin\nApollo 16: John Young & Charles Duke\nApollo 17: Eugene (Gene) Cernan & Harrison Schmidt\n\n\n2) Why haven't we been back?  \n\na) American astronauts visited the moon on six occasions.\n\nb) The "moon race" was an extension of the cold war. It was mostly about national prestige. We got there first and achieved our primary objective. There was some good science: surveys, measurements, sample collection. But it was mostly about being there first. Once we achieved our primary objective, there was no political will to go back. There still isn't.  Perhaps, if we discover He3 or something else valuable, there will be.\n\nc) I used to travel to Crested Butte, Colorado every year to ski. Because I don't go anymore, does it mean that I never went?\n\n\n3) What about the Van Allen radiation belts?  Wouldn't it have killed the astronauts?\n\nThe existence of the Van Allen radiation belts postulated in the 1940s by Nicholas Christofilos.  Their existence was confirmed in *1958* by the Explorer I satellite launched by the USA. \n\nThe radiation in the Van Allen radiation belts is not particularly strong.  You would have to hang out there for a week or so in order to get radiation sickness.  And, because the radiation is not particularly strong, a few millimeters of metal is all that is required for protection.  "An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (25 Sv) per *year*."\n\n"In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. [6]. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation."  When the astronauts returned to Earth, their dosimeters showed that they had received about as much radiation as a couple of medical X-rays.\n\n\n4) The U.S. government scammed everyone?  \n\nIn 1972, there was a politically motivated burglary of a hotel room in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. There were only about six or eight people who knew about it. However, those people, including Richard M. Nixon, the President of the United States, failed to keep that burglary a secret. It exploded into a scandal that drove the President and a number of others from office.\n\nIf six or eight people couldn't keep a hotel room burglary a secret, then how could literally thousands of people could have kept their mouths shut about six faked moon landings? Not just one moon landing, but six of them!\n\n\n5) What about the USSR?  \n\nEven if NASA and other government agencies could have faked the six moon landings well enough to fool the general public, they could NOT have fooled the space agency or military intelligence types in the USSR. The Soviets were just dying to beat us. If the landings were faked, the Soviets would have re-engineered their N-1 booster and landed on the moon just to prove what liars Americans are. Why didn't they? Because the landings were real and the Soviets knew it.\n\n\n6) Why does the flag shake?  Where are the stars?  Who took the video of Neil Armstrong? \n\nTake a look at the first two websites listed below.  They deal well with all of the technical questions.\n\n\n7) Finally, please tell us what you would accept as definitive evidence that the six moon landings were real. Is there anything?
749459
I dont know why you think anyone on a genric site like 'yahoo answers' would really know if there was a secret conspiracy in the US government/NASA.\n\nALL the so called 'inconsistancies' in the 'moon hoax conspiracy theory' have been answered time and time again, but the lunatic fringe insist on trotting out the same old (non) evidence\nthis site answers most of their rubbish:\nhttp://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html\n\nI say "Most of the rubbish", because you can never really tell what new 'fact' a hoax-nutter is going to pull out of their a*se next.
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.
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
477
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.
1116878
"...was nasa lying about neil armstrong going to the moon?..."\n\nNo, definitely not. It's unbelievable how many people prefer to accept the half-baked, erroneous "proofs" that show men never landed on the moon to the undeniable scientific facts that prove we did. Take the time to read the facts on this non-governmental website ==> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html\n\n"...the technology is much greater today than 1965, so why cant we go up there again?..."\n\nYes, our technology has greatly advanced since 1969, but at this time we simply don't have the necessary hardware to put men back on the moon---no Saturn-like boosters, no life-support systems required for manned lunar voyages, no lunar landing equipment, etc.,. It's true that we could build all the necessary equipment, but a number of factors discourage further manned lunar exploration--the space race is over, the American public has lost interest in the moon, and NASA's budget is far below the levels needed to ramp up again for manned lunar flights.
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.
992501
Yes. Man landed on the moon. Man has flown in space ships and lived in habitats in space. There was also an effort to irradicate Jewish people, it was the Halocaust. This is all part of History. No pseudo-intellectuals can change that no matter how hard they try. People should put their efforts into making the present and future better instead of making up lies about the past.
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.
429374
some say that the apollo missions to the moon were fake so that america could win the space race. also because their is really no interset on the moon for us except moon rocks. we can study the craters from earth. NASA and other space researchers in the world are planning missions to mars, and unmanned space explorations of other planets.