Did the first moon landing take place or was it an elaborate hoax? What evidence is out there?
823638
Although my wife's father performed fuel calculations for the original Apollo landing, I'll spare you that speech. 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\nI would also encourage you to watch a movie called Capricorn One. Made it 1978, it is a fictional story 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 have neither the resources nor the 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 think they would have called us out if they had 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 35+ years, scientists have been beaming lasers to the moon and measuring the return times. How are they doing this? The beams are reflected back by equipment left on the moon on at 3 different locations.\n\nCase closed.
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. !!!!
314147
From what I hear:\n1. the Blair Witch Project was real, but\n2. the 1969 lunar landing was filmed in a studio on Earth.\n\nHmmmmmmm. Now what do you think?
151208
Six --- Apollos 11,12,14,15,16 and 17\n\nFor those few simpletons who still insist that the manned lunar landings were faked, here are a number of websites that totally blow away that entire pot of idiocy:\n\nhttp://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations\n\nwww.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations\n\nIt takes time and thought to get through the data presented, so it's not as easy as leaping to the easier conclusion that everything was faked.
992501
Yes. Man landed on the moon. Man has flown in space ships and lived in habitats in space. There was also an effort to irradicate Jewish people, it was the Halocaust. This is all part of History. No pseudo-intellectuals can change that no matter how hard they try. People should put their efforts into making the present and future better instead of making up lies about the past.
1022056
The moon landing was an actual event. I don't see why people have to keep insisting it's all staged. I mean it was a huge triumph for the US and people aren't even proud of it?!
749459
I dont know why you think anyone on a genric site like 'yahoo answers' would really know if there was a secret conspiracy in the US government/NASA.\n\nALL the so called 'inconsistancies' in the 'moon hoax conspiracy theory' have been answered time and time again, but the lunatic fringe insist on trotting out the same old (non) evidence\nthis site answers most of their rubbish:\nhttp://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html\n\nI say "Most of the rubbish", because you can never really tell what new 'fact' a hoax-nutter is going to pull out of their a*se next.
262978
c don't u think it's even to think a bi that the moon landings are faked\nhow can a country do that\ncommon one day another country will definitely land on the moon and they will definitely find out whether the Americans had actually landed on the moon \nOK if that's no enough proof OK i will give u more a strong proof\nwhat about all those instruments that were actually set up by the Americans in the moon\nwe still receive signals from those machines and they give us a lot of info about many thing that's happening in moon\n\nc this whole story was just something that Media brought about for there existence\nmany became famous from all this\nall this notion was brough about by those guys without even thinking a little bit\nand as for the waving flag\ncommon man the spacecraft was still working the air from it could have made it to wave to & fro\nare u satisfied
891011
The whole story of Mary Magdelaine and the Priory of Sion was created in 1956 by a Frenchmen named Pierre Plantard and some friends. It was actually constructed to be a piece of "Theater of the Absurd." The perpetrators simply wanted to see how far they could take it.\n\nIt has been well researched by French journalists and found to be a hoax. It would have died like all hoaxes until two British writers found out about it and resurrected it. Their book inspired Dan Brown, and the rest, as they say, is history.\n\nThough serious historians have proven time and again that this is fictional nonsense, some people refuse to believe, just as some people refuse to believe that people actually landed on the moon.\n\nIt's total rubbish. Please dismiss it.
447165
well  sence its a school report   but all information concerning   the  first man on the moon to  first trip into outspace  ,  the first wome  to ever  be  in a space shuttle that  did not make  it cause the shuttle  blew  up  right after taking  off  , put the infoarmation bout the training and  long  hours  of weightlessness they go through  etc .  put names date  pictures etc , how many attempts were made  before  a sucessfull alunch was made etc
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 :-)
552042
No, it's the stuff of the lunatic (no pun intended) fringe.\n\nHowever, if you want to see some evidence, go to www.badastronomy.com\n\nAll the supposed "evidence" is flawed.\n\nI think subsequent, unmanned trips have inadvertently photographed the space junk left behind on the lunar surface.  It couldn't be there if we hadn't left it.\n\nThe only piece of proof you'd need is for an unmanned probe to photograph the flag we left.
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.
547217
Good grief -- I've only been visiting this site for a month, and this is about the fifteenth time someone has asked this same ludicrous question.\n\nYes, we landed on the moon. \nYes, we went back several times. \nYes, we left things on the moon that can still be seen today. \nYes, we left a flag on the moon -- but it wasn't flapping in the breeze in the famous photo: its momentum after being unfurled has kept it moving in the absence of anything to slow it down.\n\nYes, we brought back samples of dust and rocks that have been studied for nearly 40 years. And there's nothing like them anywhere on Earth.\n\nNo, we haven't gone back since the landings because there are no economically viable reasons to do so in this modern era of cost-effectiveness and the bottom line driving science. But just because we haven't been back doesn't mean we were never there in the first place.\n\nThe U.S. was in a major competition with the Soviets to prove our scientific superiority. If we'd never landed on the moon, and it was all a sham, do you think the thousands of NASA employees would be able to keep the secret? Do you think every other nation in the world would remain complicit in the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated"?\n\nIsn't there a FAQ on Yahoo Answers that could put this baby to rest??  I can't believe that people still think this was some kind of hoax!
97561
Apollo was not a hoax, please.  The program gave us some of the technology that you are using right now.  \nYeah, the U.S. government spent millions just to make it look like we went to the moon just to spite the ruskies.  Trust me, they are not creative enough to hatch a scheme like in the movie "Wag the Dog".
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.
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