Why dosent Neil Armstrong simply do a lie detector test to prove the moon landing are not fake??
494815
What a silly solution.Accept your countries great achievements.This made america proud.Better to direct your thoughts to todayThen america was the envy of the world. Not so today
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.
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 .
1105641
Your question has been answered.  In fact, even the largest telescopes do not have the resolving capacity to see a flag on the moon.  \n\nWhy would you think it was faked?
65721
No, the moon landing was not a hoax.\n\nOn one of the moon landings, the astronauts left a mirror on the surface of the moon which is being used even today to measure the distance between the earth and moon with lasers.\n\nWhat is the point of sending more people there?  We've developed robotics to the point where unmanned probes can go more cost effectively, with lower risk to human life, and they can stay longer.  Take the Mars rovers.  They've been on Mars roaming around for more than a year, collecting samples, taking pictures, measuring the soil and atmosphere.  They don't require food or water.  They don't get lonely for their loved ones.  If the "die", no one will mourn them.  Frankly, it makes little sense to send someone to the Moon (again) or Mars to perform these tasks.\n\nBut, back in the 60's, robotics were not so sophisticated.  Sending a person to do the job made more sense.  A human could control the space craft.  A human could make course corrections.  A human could pick up rocks, put them in a bag, and bring them back.  Yeah, the technology was primitive, but primitive technology has not stopped humans from doing amazing things.
284798
yep - no reason for them not to - the images they shot while on the moon and the movie footage shows that they were not standing anywhere on earth.\n\nPlus, that Saturn 5 stage sitting down at the Houston spaceflight center is just way too big to be a hoax or a dummy object.
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
770921
Actually, I think it would be more appropriate for us to send all the moon landing conspiracy theorists on an all-expenses, one-way trip to the heart of the Sun.\n\nIt would surely raise the average IQ of the planet to get rid of some of those nitwits.
1017971
I know it's a hoax because they filmed it in my backyard.  My parents had a place that had craters and a lot of white cheese and NASA asked us if they could use it for the astronaut's training...we agreed and then we found out that the astronauts were falling in the craters and putting flags in them and eating the cheese and saying they were on the moon.  We had to move away due to the embarrasment to our family and we were in hiding for many years.  It's only now I can tell you this because it's been over 30 yrs but if you don't hear from me anymore, it will be because NASA came back.  To verify my story, just ask Al Gore..he made global warming with a big window fan and now he is trying to blow it everywhere.
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.
545080
I'm going to make the (probably correct) assumption that you're talking about the US manned missions to the moon. We have gone to the moon and people who think we haven't are just very paranoid and naive. People who attempt to convince others that we didn't rely on people's ignorance and mistrust of the US and it's government. What they mainly do is present a lot of situations that you and I can readily test here on Earth that is "proof" that we didn't go to the moon. The problem is that things don't exactly work the same way in a low-gravity, zero-atmosphere, moon. The usual arguments and their debunkings can be found at a lot of sites but i particularly like this one:\n\nhttp://www.badastronomy.com\n\nOne of my personal favorite reasons why it probably wasn't a hoax was becaues of the Soviet Union. The Soviets had satellites, lots of satellites. They also had lots of observatories and lots of spys in the US government. If it was a hoax, they would have easily caught us and had proof. The spacecraft would have had to orbit earth while the "hoax" played out and the Soviets would have easily caught it. \n\nBut theres no convincing some people.
998912
Every bit of that "evidence" has been solidly debunked.  People with absolutely no knowledge of the science they are discussing keep repeating it, but it's wrong.\n\nForgetting all the technical details, just answer why the Russians would go along with the hoax?  Getting to the moon first was a matter of national pride for both countries, and they would certainly have been able to know if our spacecraft left Earth orbit.\n\nI also love the one about how the government framed O.J. Simpson because of his part in "Capricorn One", about a faked mission to Mars.  Seems it took them 16 years to get around to it.\n\nPeople love conspiracy theories, and if there is no reason to *suspect* a conspiracy, they'll create one out of whole cloth.  Note that many of the most vocal people pushing the moon landing theories are selling something; a book, a video.  Their websites offer all kinds of tantalizing clues, but to get the "full story", you need to shell out the bucks.\n\nOh, and before someone points out that Phil Plait of "Bad Astronomy" (2nd link) also sells stuff, yes, he does sell all kinds of BA junk.  But he doesn't require you to buy it to get the information he presents on his website.
910468
The Hubble Space telescope's maximum resolution is such that an entire Apollo landing site and exploration area are only 1/20th of a pixel. Hubble was designed with deep space astronomy in mind.\n\nEven the new OWL telescope (see Link 1) would only resolve the entire site to 2 pixels and would therefore not be enough to see the flag.\n\nIf your question is to prove that man actually walked on the moon then you need look no further than the Laser Reflector Experiment which constantly laser measures the distance between earth and moon. If the astronauts had never made it to the moon, they would not have been able to deploy these reflectors. (see Link 2)
757355
we never went there in the first place it was a hoax to show the world that the USA was Superior to the USSR . they cant do a hoax  now because the technology the public have is to good . if we did go and it was possible to resist the radiation on the moon we would have company's sending people there all the time look at all the money they would make . where there is money there is a will . but if it is not possible then no one will try.
418092
Phil Plait's website http://www.badastronomy.com as mentioned by others has gobs of info, but really the "moon hoax" junk really started in earnest in about 1978, coinciding with the release of a movie who's plot was about how NASA must fake a manned Mars mission.  The film, "Capricorn 1" was released in 1978.\n\nAlso, if you are actually doing a report on the 60's and the moon landing, you probably want to steer clear of the "conspiracy," as it really is quackery of the highest caliber.
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.
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).