Do yall think we really went to the moon or did they just photo shop it?
485816
You know that with a powerful enough telescope, you can see the flag on the moon?
216038
http://www.ufos-aliens.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Apollo1.rm \n\nNow you decide:) And why are the stars absent? The Lunar camera crosshairs:\n-If you examine the Lunar Landing pictures carefully, you will notice that the lenses were fitted with crosshairs. Examine them even closer, and you will find that several items, such as the American Flag and the Lunar Lander, are actually over the crosshairs. How can this be?  But since I was not there on the moon myself then I would never say I am 100% sure it did not happen.
402650
I do not believe we have gone to the moon.. \nThe reason for this, purely is that technology back in the 60s-70s was not capable of making it to the moon. \n\nHell even today to go to the moon would be tough.. Sure we could get there, but to land, do the things that they claim they did back then (play golf, place the flag in the ground etc) and then to get back in that tiny little space capsule and make it back all the way to earth with enough air is outrageous. Not to mention all the radiation they would of encountered passing through the asteroid belt. According to NASA I think I read they are going to attempt another man mission to the moon in 2018. Why that long? Because they still have lots of kinks to work out and would not be able to fake it this time.\n\nIf you do a google or yahoo search on this subject you will see countless of articles on why man has not gone to the moon.. Just my two cents.
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
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
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.
360378
Well... Let's see...\n\nWe know nothing is there, and we brought back 842 pounds of Moon rocks. Ain't that enough?\n\nBesides, why should we do it, if no other country is doing it?
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.
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.
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.
131259
They aren't. My brother works at the Keck telescope in Hawai'i, which is run by NASA, and they looked at the moon recently to get some information about possible landing sites for the new missions. But there's not much call to look at the moon any more, since we can get much better pictures from sending spaceprobes there.
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?
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
311873
Because we really did land on the Moon.
421082
Someone would believe that because the videos/films of the event are the kind that could have been faked.  Someone might not have been a direct eyewitness to the event.  Someone might believe in a gov't conspiracy to divert huge amounts of money to covert projects or pockets.  Someone might believe the moon is not actually a sphere or is in some fashion incapable of being landed on.  Someone might be from a country or society that does not like the United States and was told convincingly that it was a fake (There is no way to prove this wrong other than taking the skeptic to the moon and showing him the remains of the landers)
930404
Yes, he walked on the moon. Why would the gvt have spent all that money to pull off one big hoax? Money they didn't actually have in those days. Its not like today where a billion dollars is a drop in the bucket.\n\nI feel bad for Neil Armstrong. He walked on the moon and now some asshats are trying to say he didn't. It must feel terrible to have people doubt him.
21288
They DID land on the moon. See the sources.