Did man REALLY land on the moon ?
400722
No.  I saw this video about the moon landing, and how it was done.  The video showed how the lighting was all wrong, and a picture a satellite took of a "part of the moon" here on earth.  I could go on, but I am too tired.
567933
Soviet Union.\n"The first man-made object to land on the Moon was Luna 2 in 1959, the first photographs of the otherwise occluded far side of the Moon were made by Luna 3 in the same year, and the first people to land on the Moon came aboard Apollo 11 in 1969."
155089
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
165024
Yes. Neil Armstrong and others have really walked on the moon.  They even left a mirror on the surface which, over 30 years later, we still use to measure the distance between the earth and the moon.
1090141
Well, not a REAL man. It just looks like the moon has a face if you stare at it for awhile. It's really just the craters and landscape that gives the illusion of a "face."
889877
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\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.
548204
Neil Armstrong was the first person to set foot on the Moon
15143
I'm not sure. I believe it is real though. Wish I had some solid proof to back it up. Perhaps we wont know for sure untill civilians are able to land freely on the moon and see for themselves. Until that happens fully, we just have to rely on faith.
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.
655767
In a vacuum. -- One of the astronauts did this experiment on the moon with a feather and a hammer. They both hit the dirt at the same time, and he said "looks like Mr. Galileo was right". There is a film of it somewhere on one of NASA's websites.
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.
452652
As a tried and true Science Fiction, I like What Ifs as much as the next person.  I think it is important to keep it all in perspective. We did indeed put a man on the moon, but we have yet to find a way to teleport anything. \n\nTo answer your question, a discover of that magnitude could never be kept secret. The money to be made from such a technology would guarantee someone would either leak the secret or steal it.
1092704
Of course, we landed on the moon. C'mon, there would have had to been a massive conspiracy of hundreds of people employed at NASA and involved in the effort including hundreds of manufacturers and suppliers. There is no real debate.\nGo back? For what. It is a dead planet and we have learned what we need to know. The only reason to go back would to be to mine for valuable minerals which would be way to expensive at this point in time.
979631
First off... if they really did land on the moon... how in the world and why in the world would they lose the original footage of the moon landing. Wouldn't that footage have been a coveted prize from our early space exploration???  Of course it would have... NASA losing that footage so that it can no longer be tested or viewed should be a big hint for those who still believe the moon landing to be true.  The footage of Neil Armstrong's historic moment is one of the most important artifacts of the 20th century.  Therefore, who would benefit from losing the footage???  and more importantly, what would they gain??? \n\nSecond, consider the fact that they could not land back onto Earth after they returned from the lunar mission... however, they expect us to believe that they could land on the moon and then take back off from the moon... BUT... they would then have to land in the ocean when they returned. If we didn't have the technology to LAND back on Earth... how in world could we have done everything else that they stated they did. Sadly, our technology was definitely in its infancy stage in 1969 and hasn't even progressed enough at this time to undertake a lunar mission.  Notice how NASA is hoping for a lunar mission by 2018... why the long wait?  I personally think that they are being forced to wait since "the average Joe" now has the technology and capabilities to view and evaluate the whole mission from start to finish... and therefore, they can't fake anything.
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
1038051
Man has landed on the moon six times.  Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 (Apollo 13 never landed as it had to abort its mission due to problems en route).
795934
no, becasue there's no wind on the moon, yet the flag was waving. \nalso all one would have to do to prove it did happen was photograph the landing site through a telescope.\nthe rover didn't fly off into space did it. if it's still there and you want find out for yourself then break out your telescope and find it.\nnot to get your hopes up, but you wont find anything.