Why did NASA staged the Landing of Man on the Moon?
488362
They didn't stage it. \n\n> If it was not fake then where are the real tapes. why are > they missing. \n\nWhat "tapes" are these? film, video and data are freely available from NASA.\n\n> wht Buzz aldrin is not ready to give interviews. \n\nBuzz gives interviews all the time. Buzz even punched that gasbag Bart Siebrel!\n\n> And how did the video shows lift off from the moon when no > body stayed there to shoot it. \n\nRobotic camera.\n\n> HOw did flag waved? \n\nThe flag wasn't "waving" in a wind It had ripples in it from the moment it was unfurled, and with no wind to change that, they stayed static.\n\n> how they communicated via vaccumm. dose satellite \n> transmits signals in vaccuum. \n\nYes, satellites transmit signals in vacuum. And so do remote landing craft on the moon directly back to earth. And so do incredibly remote robotic spacecraft that are now beyond the edge of our solar system. And on mars. And orbiting Saturn. And on the way to Pluto. AND being "transmitted" at earth from interstellar radio sources like stars. Electromagnetic signals do not need a medium to be transmitted-they are their own medium. \n\nanswer all this and i belive that NASA did landed.
237817
Well, you are right in one thing!\n\nWE didn´t land on the moon. \nNeil Armstrong did, and the other poor astronaut that for landing second on the moon got to never be remembered.\n\nWhat´s with the WE? \n\nBut getting serious with your question, there are some conspiracy theories about it.\nThey say that the USA knew of the Soviets plans to go the moon, and since we where in the middle of the Cold War, oppinion and image WAS EVERYTHING, so the USA mounted a Fake stage of the moon, launched a rocket and claim to be the first ones in the moon.\n\nThere has never been any evidence of the moon landing not ever taking place.
727779
Did man really walk on the Moon ??? \n      \n   \nWeb Krishna.org \n \n\n\nDid man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick, asks David Milne? The greater lunar lie. In the early hours of May 16, 1990, after a week spent watching old video footage of man on the Moon, a thought was turning into an obsession in the mind of Ralph Rene. David Milne (04-07-06)\n\n"How can the flag be fluttering," the 47 year old American kept asking himself, "when there's no wind on the atmosphere free Moon?" That moment was to be the beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for the self-taught engineer from New Jersey. He started investigating the Apollo Moon landings, scouring every NASA film, photo and report with a growing sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake. \n\nIt is of course the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. But Rene has now put all his findings into a startling book entitled NASA Mooned America. Published by himself, it's being sold by mail order - and is a compelling read. \n\nThe story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space, leaving a panicked America trailing in the space race. \n\nAt an emergency meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver, put a man on the Moon. With an impassioned speech he secured the plan an unbelievable 40 billion dollars. And so, says Rene (and a growing number of astro-physicists are beginning to agree with him), the great Moon hoax was born. \n\nBetween 1969 and 1972, seven Apollo ships headed to the Moon. Six claim to have made it, with the ill fated Apollo 13--whose oxygen tanks apparently exploded halfway--being the only casualties. \n\nBut with the exception of the known rocks, which could have been easily mocked up in a lab, the photographs and film footage are the only proof that the Eagle ever landed. And Rene believes they're fake. For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts gambol threw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film "man's greatest achievement" from a TV screen in Houston--a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it. \n\nBy contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred. As Rene points out, that's not all: \n\nThe cameras had no white meters or view finders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing. \nThere film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. \nThey managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized clubs. It should have been almost impossible to bend their fingers. . \nAward winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows: \n\nThe shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and, in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun. \nThe American flag and the words "United States" are always brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow. \nNot one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time. \nThe pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly. \nDavid Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by "whistle blowers", who were keen for the truth to on
1094064
The reality behind the first step of a human being on the moon is absolutely mind blowing and incredibly hard to imagine. It is so difficult to imagine for some people that they become conspiracy theorists... Having had the good fortune to speak with a US astronaut in person, I would have to say that this is a reality that is explained best by experience than by words or pictures.
608588
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 :-)
21288
They DID land on the moon. See the sources.
825975
no they did'nt....they showed in discovery they faked their trip to moon... made ass of all
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
154020
Lots of things make people say that. There are pieces of evidence pointing in both directions (yes/no). I'm not sure what to believe, myself. I'm kind of leaning toward no, simply because the claims against the moon landing make sense, and the attempts to refute those claims don't sound very credible.\n\nBut honestly, I don't really care. Maybe we did, maybe we didn't. Unless you went yourself, or helped fake the whole thing, or are given adequate proof, you really can't know for sure.
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.
557887
They have actually landed on the moon. Discovery Channel proved it, and the cost for shooting this all in studio was very high as compared to actually going on the moon. !!!!
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.
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.
1139913
Nothing is impossible now, with the development of science and technology.  But we should all be careful as not to do what the US did...staging it on a studio to look like the astronauts have really landed on the moon!  fooled us! but not for long, right?
506645
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 .
852611
YOU ARE RIGHT.\nAmerica is making fool, they never landed on moon, it is all fake story.
1058333
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.