Was the 1969 landing on the moon a hoax.?
816877
No.  Unless you think that our deadly enemies of the time (USSR, Peoples Rep. of China and all their satellite nations) who would have loved to embarrass the US were all some how paid off to not mention their radar and radio telescopic readings.  Common sense...our enemies were tracking it the same as we were...if there had been any funny business...they would have screamed bloody murder...instead, they re-doubled their own space and missile programs.
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)
852611
YOU ARE RIGHT.\nAmerica is making fool, they never landed on moon, it is all fake story.
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.
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
771627
The key phrase in your question is "some people."\n\nSome of these same people believe the moon landing was a hoax, 9/11 was a government sponsored event, area 51 is where we hide all of the crashed UFOs and on and on......\n\nLooks real to me, too.
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.
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.
252263
Yes it is  well documented that we did.\nIt really would have been impossible to fake. and even more impossible to conceal a hoax of that magnitude for this long.\n\nThere is a vast deal of technology that came from the space  program .\nThe Apollo spacecraft was seen during its trans-Lunar coast by observers on Earth. Amateur astronomers were able to sight the spacecraft, exactly where they should have been, during the trans-Lunar coast and amateur radio operators were able to listen-in on the command module in Lunar orbit. The explosion of Apollo 13 was caught on video tape by an amateur astronomer. Russia and radio telescope observatories not owned or controlled by the USA also tracked the Apollo spacecrafts and transmissions.
74992
Stop drinking the kool-aid. Watch the tapes from the moon-landing. All of that detail could not have been faked in the 60s. Also, what about the moon rocks that were recovered?
414300
It was Neil Armstrong. The lander had multiple cameras on it.\n\nIf you think its a conspiracy theory, then you have your whacked out beliefs. ;-)
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.
1099240
I admit I have been wondering the same thing myself--espicially after seeing a documentary posing doubts we landed on the moon.  The photographic evidence posed on the show did give me some thought, being I do have experience in professional photography.\n\nThe LEM photos: That thing purportedly landed on the moon, firing retro rockets with enough blast power to burn the moon surface under it to shiny black glass.....yet the area looks undistrubed!  All that violent firepower had to have raised moon dust all over the place.....yet look how shiny and dirt free the LEM landing pads looked.  Espically take note of NO moon dust collected inside the landing foot pods themselves.\n\nThe Apollo mission cameras were state of the art of their time, with perfectly etched "crosses" on the lenses to assist with picture composition.  I still see the astronaut photo where one of those crosses IS BLOCKED OUT by the guy's shoulder--where it should've been OVERLAPPED to appear onto his arm/shoulder!!\n\nThe sun light / angle theory gets complicated.....but it clearly made sense to me....and gave rise to suspicions.  \n\nThe video of a golf ball getting shot out into space was good PR, but take note how the fine moon dust stirred up by the lunar rover merely falls back to the surface....when it should fly off into the air.\n\nThen there's the Van Allen belt explanation: stuff we learned back in fifth grade: a deadly belt of radiation, stretching hundreds of miles between us and the Moon.  You'd have to travel in a ship with walls of at least five feet thick of lead to safely shoot through it....the Apollo space vehicle walls were....what....maybe two inches (if that) thick???  And our guys never cooked like chicken in a microwave???? The Van Allen belt emits enough deadly radiation to singe fry the Apollo capsule electronics in about 2 minutes and cook the astronauts in about another minute past that.  So how did our guys do it?\n\nThe Space Shuttle: purportedly capable of travel to the Moon and back....yet it's NEVER been done.  Why? The thing can carry enough fuel, food / supplies and other life support for such safe travel.  In fact, it was one of the Shuttle program objectives...that got put on the back burner....and not likely due to "budget" or "safety" concerns.\n\nHowever, all this "evidence" is of conjecture; you have to be your own judge on if we faked the Moon landings, until we get a deathbed confession by one of the surviving astronauts to confirm we DID fake the landings.  Until then, it makes for great coffee-cafe debate amongst good friends.
900326
America did not land on the Moon. We payed billions of dollars for the 360 foot Saturn 5 rocket so we could look at it and say wow that is a big rocket. We kept approx. 400,000 technicians, scientists and construction contractors quiet, with zero leaks to the public. The rocks that we thought that came from moon and have proved to be from the moon are really from the Pacific Ocean. \n\nOther Conspiracies to think about: \n\n1. The Jews did not suffer in Germany because there was no Holocaust. Actually it was the Jews that was torturing the poor blond haired deprived Germans. Those tattoos on the Jews arms and hands that are still alive today (by the grace of God) are really there because they want to be hip. \n\n2. We knew the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor before they did. I mean come-on President Roosevelt liked the thought of our boys baking inside the Battle Ship Arizona before they died. The President was looking for a better way to get a good nights sleep. \n\n3. 9/11 conspiracy: the number of people it would've taken to pull off the largest mass murder in US history could fill one of the towers. Do you think the present administration is competent enough to pull off the largest scam in history? The Watergate and Enron capers were known by a handful of people and the secrets were leaked. So how did the 9/11 keep thousands of people's lips sealed?\n\n4. The Mafia whacked JFK, via the Russian connection, via the Cuban connection. The man on the grassy knoll was a CIA agent acting on orders from Marcello of New Orleans with complicity of the then Boss of Boss Giancana in Chicago. Ruby whacked Oswald to seal the path to the Mafia, he was a two-bit night club owner in Marcello's outfit...true story.\n\n5. Aliens landed in Roswell and we transported them to Area 51 to back engineer their technology, where do you think the stealth air craft came from? Again, we kept it secret by brain washing the thousands of workers who were in on the scam. \n\n6. The Moon we see every night is really not there along with the planets and stars as well the Planet Killing Asteroids. Those were put there by the evil United States to toy with our minds. \n\n7. Fossils of early homosapiens, homoerectus and earlier models were put their by evil paleontologists, athropoligists, and assorted rock hounds looking to enhance their careers, Creation is the real objective reality. \n\n8. America is a conspiracy and is a fake country and none of us Americans really live here. \n\n9. I was never born so this response to your question is a fake.
1099347
Yes i do. The Moon Landing. I dont think it happened.
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.
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.