Doesn't the flag waving prove the moon landing was a hoxe?
144940
There is no atmosphere on the moon, therefore no wind, therefore leading s to believe it is a hoax and a conspiracy.
49774
it think it is a hoax... "The astronauts have kept out of the public eye", something happend. they were on their way to the moon, but i don't believe they have been on it! if you look around, read about it, it will become more clear. the pictures they have made don't match the actual event... i think they have been made in a hollywood studio. there has been pictures with some major mistakes, like the shadowing, footprints etc. everybody got his own opinion, and this is mine: it's a hoax.
588041
Seing that I was there when it happened, I can assure you that it was not a conspiracy. Unless of course, they used elaborate holographic technology to make a plane appear in the sky.
1127669
Absolutely real! The couple of boobs who made accusations saying it was fake are complete idiots! Neither of the two who started this rumor had any technical background to support their claims! Find some old movie clips and see for yourself. The actions of the astronauts could not possibly be mimicked here on Earth! So now we have a paradox, in order to fake the moon landing you would have to go to the nearest object  to us in space which would be......you guessed it! The moon! Give Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin cudos for being the brave men they were and leave it rest! I remember watching it in awe live in my classroom at the ripe old age of 16! The onboard computers they used were no where near as powerful as your basic dell 300 dollar desktop.....they didnt have any more than 32 kilobits of ram and were totally programmed in binary. These men came dangerously close to not making it on their lunar landing.\nP.S. Nikis answer below explains why romania is still a third world, uneducated country. Her statement "why not the flag freeze?" is simply because there was no moisture present.
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.
543801
Lunar Landing is fake. People have proven that the photos are totally fake by identifying the lengths of the shadows and angles of the shadows as studio lighting.\n\nJust imagine, in the midst of the cold war, USA had to do something to show that they were still NO.1 in the space race all whilst the Soviet Union had already sent a man to orbit.\n\nAs for the WTC. That was totally a wet work by zionist groups.  Come on, there's enough evidence out there and if you still believe that the WTC was done by some Islamic terrorits, you gotta be blind, drugged, or really outta your mind.  \n\nRecent stunts by CIA (criminals in action) is the color revolution in former CIS nations.  Look that up if you don't know what I am talking about.  Velvet, Orange, Tulip Revolution.
371858
I am a big project Apollo fan and have done a lot of reading into this over the years (including the conspiracies). Armstrong has never talked openly about the moonlandings in public and most of what is reported from him has been hearsay. One thing I did read is that he was meant to say 'That's one small step for A man, one giant....'. I read also that the lunar ladder to the surface had to be modified after the landing as it was too short.
706563
Of course they went. In 1969 it would have been harder to fake then actually have gone.\nI'm sick of that flag waving on the moon rubbish it did not and never waved in the wind there is no atmosphere on the moon so how can there be wind,numbnuts.\nGo back to your sheep taffy.
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!
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.
946175
the moon does have gravity, and the flag was not waving it was shaking when they put it in the ground, \n\ncheck this out this video\n\nhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMrUpCjVHIk
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
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
668715
There are 6 flags there, one for each of the Apollo landings. But no, the Moon is too far away for even the largest telescope to see something so small. Lots of objects were left on the Moon by the Apollo landings, the largest being the LM decent stage. But as others have pointed out, there were special reflectors left that will bounce any light you shine on them back in exactly the same direction it came from. If a sufficiently bright laser is aimed toward the places where the landings occurred, you can see a bright spot where the reflectors are. You need a big telescope and powerful laser though, I never heard of an amateur doing it.
32339
FACT FACT FACT.\n\nMy physics professor gave the unbeatable argument on this one.  If the USA had lied, the USSR WOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING.  The USSR was very technologically advanced, and it would have taken very little effort on their part to look up and see if there really was a metal box hurling toward the moon sending high-amplitude radio transmissions back to Houston.  If this hadn't been the case, the USSR would have called our bluff, I guarantee you.\n\nIf they didn't doubt the moon landing, why the hell should we?  Defrauding the American people might have been a comparably easy task, but there's no way they could have fooled the USSR.  The USSR did, after all, have the technology to beat us in the first two stages of the space race (the first satelite and the first human in space).
588821
Nope.... As part of the moon landing, the astronauts left a reflector dish on the moon which was used by observatories to calculate the exact distance to the moon (down to a fraction of an inch). They fired a laser beam at it and calculated the time taken for the beam to be reflected back to Earth, thereby allowing scientists to calculate the distance to the moon. If there was no moon landing then who left the reflector ?\n\nIn July 2006 a joint Japanese/European satellite will be launched to map the surface of the moon. Part of the plan is to beam back pictures of the equipment left behind on the moon, such as the lunar lander and scoot-about buggy. That should silence the critic once and for all.\n\nAs far the flag, it moved due to solar wind particle emitted by the Sun, and unlike tidal winds on Earth, solar winds do not require any atmosphere. If the flag hadn't moved then it would have been suspicious !!!
451361
i do not beleive any man has ever landed on the moon and there are telescopes powerful enough to see the landing site but even if pics of that came about they would be faked too there is a belt of radioactive gas between the moon and the earth witch no man in a spaceship could pass ecsept neil armstrong of corse yeah right wheva u believe or not it doesnt matter the moon is a useless rock