NationStates Jolt Archive

There are many arguments that support that man DID not land on the moon and that it was a giant hoax. The flag waving when there's no wind on the moon and the absence of stars in the background are the two biggest pieces of evidence. And then there's arguments supporting the moon landing. I'm tired. Discuss. :mp5:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Refutes all conspiracy claims that we didn't land on the moon.

1. They were shaking the flag to make it look like it was waving. It worked very well, as you can see.
2. Can't see stars during bright daytime of Earth, either, but it doesn't disprove the existance of outer space.

Glad someone saved me the trouble of posting the link to that excellent site. Though even after that site refutes all the believers that we didn't land arguments' they will still stick to some. I ran into someone in a chatroom discussing this who I pointed to this site, after a bit of arguing he agreed that his reasons were flawed, I then saw him again a few weeks later spewing the exact same theories that site had proven to him to be wrong.

Well if they are going to go through the trouble of faking a moon landing I think they could go through the trouble of *creating* evidence to *disprove* hoax theories. Not like they can't given howlong they have been able to cover up the existence of aliens on the planet.

My main argument is this, the Russians could see what we were doing in space, if we made that hoax they would've been screaming the whole time how we never did it and they would be the 1st.

Then there is the single biggest piece of evidence that man DID land on the moon:

The Apollo 11 Lunar Module's service section. Let me elaborate:

It's a giant reflector. And for the last 30 years or so, scientists have been using it to bounce a laser beam between the Earth and the Moon to accurately measure it's distance, and even to measure the continental drift between North America and Europe.

Now... if man didn't land on the moon, how did the giant reflector get there? :D

So fake! I have the evidence here (http://www.stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm)!

Also see the outrageous mockumentary "Dark Side of the Moon" (http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunday/darksideofthemoon/about.html) with loads of interviews including Buzz Aldrin and Donald Rumsfeld.

If you think about it, there was every reason why faking the moon landing would have been a great idea.

The attitude towards the government was at an all time low from the Veitnam War.
The moon landing gave them hope in their leaders and hope for the future.
Look at how many outspoken leaders died in the 60's:
JFK
RFK.
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King.
Malcolm X.

The faith in the leadership of america, and even the peoples patriotism simply wasnt there anymore.
The moon landing changed all that.
They accomplished the greatest moment in history.

Exactly when it was needed.
Coincedience?

Maybe.

Ive seen a lot of evidence about the moon landing being faked, and while they do make some compelling evidence, I simply dont think that kind of conspiracy could survive for very long.

Nor the fact that all that evidence has been refuted. I want to see just one single piece of evidence that hasn't been disproven and I'll consider it. Before that, it's just a conspiracy.

Why am I even bothering to waste my time responding to this thread?

Mankind landed on the moon. I'm not here to discuss all the possible things that could have gone wrong, or how some things don't seem possible. It goes to show that ignorance continues to spread even in the most educated of countries. It's okay to question things, but it's completely another thing to not believe the truth.

If you want to continue your critical thinking exercises (for those that are just curious where such an absurd argument comes from), go to your favorite search engine and search "Mankind did or did not land on the moon" (or some such phrase).

Yours royally,
King Bobort of Tihland

(Not only does Tihland have bases on the moon, it has robotic labor placed in many asteroids in the solar system.)

It astounds me that we can give mankind so much credit for so many things - from the polio vaccine to the internet - but there are people who will deny that we went to the moon!

I propose a new conspiracy theory that all internet lackies must accept - we never actually went to the "New World" ... it was a hoax designed by the Catholic Church and the ruling powers of Spain. We're actually still in Europe and only in our government brain-washed minds do we believe that the US, Canada, Mexico, et al exists.

(jack-asses)

It astounds me that we can give mankind so much credit for so many things - from the polio vaccine to the internet - but there are people who will deny that we went to the moon!

I propose a new conspiracy theory that all internet lackies must accept - we never actually went to the "New World" ... it was a hoax designed by the Catholic Church and the ruling powers of Spain. We're actually still in Europe and only in our government brain-washed minds do we believe that the US, Canada, Mexico, et al exists.

(jack-asses)

And the world is flat. :)

So fake! I have the evidence here!

That was hilarious :)

Let me make this abundantly clear...WE LANDED ON THE MOON. IN 1969. It was a great achievement for humankind. It was not faked. People (thousands of them) saw the Apollo 11 rocket take off, and unless you want to suggest that the government simply let the 3 men seen walking into the capsule before takeoff die, then shut up about the moon landing being a hoax. It isn't.

...so there.

Wow!
I was going to link to BadAstronomy,but... Glad to see the site is well known.

Let me make this abundantly clear...WE LANDED ON THE MOON. IN 1969. It was a great achievement for humankind. It was not faked. People (thousands of them) saw the Apollo 11 rocket take off, and unless you want to suggest that the government simply let the 3 men seen walking into the capsule before takeoff die, then shut up about the moon landing being a hoax. It isn't.

...so there.

Just to nit-pick : No-one is claiming that we didn't go into space...they just think that the astronots didn't make the trip to the moon, and just orbited the earth until it was time to come back down.

Those conspiracy guys are sweating bullets over the US's plans to go back to the moon again...or they just think that George Bush wants to go there to plant 'new' evidence.

if man didnt land on the moon where did all the millions of dollars go? it's not like everyone in the space program had an expensive day at a stip clup

if man didnt land on the moon where did all the millions of dollars go? it's not like everyone in the space program had an expensive day at a stip clup
Yes they did.

If the moon landings really were faked, they'd done a better job.

"Hey, let's film an 'astronaut' planting the American flag! On the moon!"
"Yeah, and don't bother closing the window, no-one will notice it moving. And if they do, we can always make up some bullshit about how the astronaut is poking it or something."
"People will believe anything these days, really."

It was done somewhere in Death Valley says the conspiracy. Oh, and do you believe everything you see? Perhaps if you read the question, you'd realize that I asked if we landed on the moon, not gone into outer space... :rolleyes:

Here are some of the reasons given

15. "Tricky Dick" Richard Nixon was president at the time. He was the king of cover-up, secret tapes and scandal. Think about all of his potential antics that were not discovered.

14. A successful manned mission to the moon offered a wonderful pride-boosting distraction for the near revolt of the US citizens over 50,000 deaths in the Vietnam War.

13. The Soviets had a five-to-one superiority to the U.S. in manned hours in space. They were first in achieving the following seven important milestones:

First manmade satellite in earth orbit…
First man in space…
First man to orbit the earth…
First woman in space…
The first crew of three astronauts onboard one spacecraft…
The first space walk…
The first of two orbiting space craft rendezvousing…
This put America at a perceived military disadvantage in missile technology during the very height of the Cold War.

12. Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, refuses to give interviews to anyone on the subject. "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies." Collins also refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue us if we showed it to anyone. See streaming video: "Buzz says, "Buzz Off!"

11. Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released versions. Why would they be updating thirty-year-old pictures if they really went to the moon?

10. Rediscovered lost footage shows the American flag blowing in the wind. The wind was probably caused by intense air-conditioning used to cool the astronauts in their lightened, uncirculated, space suits. The cooling systems in the backpacks would have been removed to lighten the load not designed for earth's six times heavier gravity, otherwise they might have fallen over. See streaming video: "Flag blowing in the wind."

9. Enlarged photographs underneath the lunar lander's 10,000 lb. thrust engine show the soil completely undisturbed. During ground tests there was grave concern for the vehicle falling into the hole the engine created as it descended. An oversight that they would have to keep consistent for all subsequent moon missions. They attributed it to the effect of no atmosphere (except for the flag blowing in the wind - see # 10!)

8. Rare, uncirculated photographs, allegedly from the moon's surface, show scenes supposedly lit solely by sunlight. Yet they contain shadows that do not run parallel with each other, indicating supplemental artificial light. Sunlight would cast shadows that would never intersect. See our streaming video: "Photographic Analysis" for some eye opening examples.

7. The moon is 250,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo astronauts, no humans even claim to have gone beyond low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower altitude. The Van Allen radiation belts exist because the Earth's magnetic field traps the solar wind. See streaming video: "Radiation Belts."

6. The top portion of the lunar module which landed on the moon supposedly popped up off the moon with two astronauts aboard, entered lunar orbit 60 miles up, and docked with the command module in lunar orbit. To look at its design and think such could have actually occurred is absolutely ludicrous.

5. The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some Apollo missions.

4. Take a look at the lunar module which supposedly flew from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. It is a cylindrical shape with a high center of gravity and one big thrust engine at the bottom. Upon just looking at this design, to think it would not immediately pinwheel and crash, as the lunar module trainer did three weeks prior on Earth, is absurd.

3. After the Apollo 11 mission, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin gave a press conference. When asked whether they remembered seeing any stars from the surface of the moon, Collins, who was supposedly in the command module the whole time, gave a wrong answer to a question he should not have been answering. The relevant portion of this clip is in my documentary; viewing it with an understanding of the circumstances makes it clear they were lying about having traveled to the moon. I'm saying Collins blew it right then and there and I honestly cannot understand why there is even further discussion on the whole topic. Furthermore, if you obtain a written transcript of the press conference you'll see that the comment is erroneously attributed to Aldrin. Honest mistake or cover-up?

2. In 1967 three astronauts were burned alive on the launch pad. The upshot of the congressional inquiry was that the entire Apollo program was in shambles and it was a miracle no one was killed sooner. All of the problems were supposedly fixed by 1969, just two years later. How could they have made such a large improvement in "quality control" in such a short period of time.

1. All Apollo missions stayed in low-earth orbit for the duration of the trip. We uncovered some mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes footage from NASA that shows the crew of Apollo 11 clearly staging a shot of being half-way to the moon. This clip, shown in our documentary, proves they did not leave low-earth orbit. You won't see this anywhere else!

"Source" -- http://www.moonmovie.com/15things.html

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Refutes all conspiracy claims that we didn't land on the moon.

1. They were shaking the flag to make it look like it was waving. It worked very well, as you can see.
2. Can't see stars during bright daytime of Earth, either, but it doesn't disprove the existance of outer space.

I saw a tv program and can explain all

1. the flag shook because they had trouble fitting the two screw on parts together, they turned the flag to help get it in and it shook as there is no gravity on the moon the flag swayed greatly

2. you can not see the stars as when the sun shines on the moon it reflects light , just as on earth when you have a lot of light you can not see the stars, it happened on the moon

3. the was no impact crater from the lander as it landed at an angle not straight down, this reduced the impact

4. the lighting of dark areas where there should be shadows is expalined by the moon reflecting light as it does anyway (thats how we see it)

HOWEVER there are a lot of things unexplained as

the camera view when Neil Armstrong made his historic stepping on the moon, was from out side the lander yet any external cameras would have been damaged by impact.
Unless a camera man was there.


The TV transmission even by todays standards was excellent, the primative tv broadcasting meant there wold have been a considrable time delay but all of it was "live".

telegram me if you wish to know more ( i never use the rps)
you won't though

they didn't land on the moon

the flag was never shaken, it had metal wires within it to hold it straight

otherwise the flag would've fallen down too many times for all those photos

Here are some of the reasons given

15, 14, and 13: Those are evidence that the US had a goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him home safely, which had already been known for eight years. They are not evidence that anything was faked.

12: After all the interviews that they HAVE given, it's no surprise that they're denying some interviews after 35 years.

11: That means you can't use the newly retouched photographs as evidence of the moon landings. The original photographs are still available.

10: The moon doesn't have an atmosphere so there wasn't any air viscosity to stop the flag from waving after they stopped waving it.

9: The moon doesn't have an atmosphere so there wasn't any air to blow against the ground. There was also less thrust than during the tests because of the weaker gravity field.

8: The shadows should only run parallel if the light source is perpendicular to the direction of the camera. That rule is the same on the moon as it is on Earth.

7: They didn't spend much time in the radiation belts.

6: A look at the top of the module doesn't tell us much about how it works or doesn't work.

5: They didn't land on the hottest spot.

4: They had more than one thruster. There were others to keep the landing module upright. A person standing has a high center of gravity with all weight supported by two feet at the ground. Upon seeing a person standing, tho think he would not immediately tip over is absurd, unless you've done it yourself.

3: No clip is shown for me to address.

2: More effort went into the space program in 1968 and 1969 than now. They rebuilt their equipment to reduce the probability of failure. If you want to know the details, do some research and make a documentary.

1: No clip is shown for me to address.


the camera view when Neil Armstrong made his historic stepping on the moon, was from out side the lander yet any external cameras would have been damaged by impact.
Unless a camera man was there.

The TV transmission even by todays standards was excellent, the primative tv broadcasting meant there wold have been a considrable time delay but all of it was "live".they pushed the camera away from the lander after it landed. The transmission was not excellent by today's standards. The signal travelled at about 186,000 miles per second so the time delay was about 3 seconds round trip

they pushed the camera away from the lander after it landed. The transmission was not excellent by today's standards. The signal travelled at about 186,000 miles per second so the time delay was about 3 seconds round trip
I don't know what side of this argument I want to be on...and I'm not very knowledgeable about this time period, but what is the time delay when they have the interviews via satellite phone on CNN today? It seems pretty lengthy and it seems a signal from the moon would take much longer because of 1) greater distance, 2) older technology. If you would please address these questions.

I don't know what side of this argument I want to be on...and I'm not very knowledgeable about this time period, but what is the time delay when they have the interviews via satellite phone on CNN today? It seems pretty lengthy and it seems a signal from the moon would take much longer because of 1) greater distance, 2) older technology. If you would please address these questions.The greater distance adds 2.5 seconds to the delay, round trip. The actual delay was a little longer since the signal slows down in the radio equipment (0.5 second nowadays)

I'm not so sure that we did. After hearing about the show they had on Fox a few years ago Conspiracy Theory: Did We Go to the Moon?.

Clicky (www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ConspiracyTheoryDidWeGototheMoon.htm)

Let me make this abundantly clear...WE LANDED ON THE MOON. IN 1969. It was a great achievement for humankind. It was not faked. People (thousands of them) saw the Apollo 11 rocket take off, and unless you want to suggest that the government simply let the 3 men seen walking into the capsule before takeoff die, then shut up about the moon landing being a hoax. It isn't.

...so there.

They would have just had them orbit for a while, and then come back. The astronauts DID come back as I remember, who even said that they died?

I know that we actually did land on the moon, Im just playing devil's sdvocate

Now, if they didn't land on the moon, where did the millions of dollars go?

So sorry New Spartucus, I didn't read yours. No, seriously, I came up with it myself.

The real fakers were the Russians. The first manned space flight was staged to give them a boost in propaganda. The space and missile gap were false, used to keep the US populace in fear thus allowing increased spending on NASA and military.

There are many arguments that support that man DID not land on the moon and that it was a giant hoax. The flag waving when there's no wind on the moon and the absence of stars in the background are the two biggest pieces of evidence. And then there's arguments supporting the moon landing. I'm tired. Discuss. :mp5:


IF it was faked, why didn't the USSR say something? What kept them from screaming, "FAKE!"? Considering, they were trying to get to the moon as well.

Another argument against it being faked that I heard:

Think of any movie from that time period. Think of the special effects in them. They are pretty awful, aren't they? The big things. Like space-ships. How come NASA's one's look believable? They may have had more money than Holywood-but they didn't have a computer that could do what they can do now.

Now look I'm sure no one believes that we never landed on the moon. But it can be argued that it was not in 1969... Now if that famous moon landing was in fact staged... then still a moon laning occurred in the time between '69 and now.

Now look I'm sure no one believes that we never landed on the moon. But it can be argued that it was not in 1969... Now if that famous moon landing was in fact staged... then still a moon laning occurred in the time between '69 and now.

Sure, it can still be argued... just not convincingly. Every single one of the arguments against the Apollo 11 landing can be easily refuted. After all, they did bring lumps of moonrock back with them -- which were made available to independent international scientists -- and leave an object on the moon which various scientists from all over the world have been bouncing laser beams off of for decades now. Kind of hard to do without actually going to the moon.

What's more likely: that Apollo 11 landed on the moon, or that a conspiracy of massive, epic proportions was uncovered by some bloke with a website and a wholly inadequate grasp of children's-encyclopedia-level science?

The so-called "evidence" is comically inadequate. The Van Allen belts are spoken of as if they were crackling purple fields of hard radiation from some 50s B-movie. The flag "waves in a breeze" and yet the dust from the astronauts' footsteps arcs out in perfect parabolae, instead of hanging around in little drifting puffs, proving that they were in a vacuum. The exterior camera "would have been damaged by the impact" -- except the impact was in a 1/6 G environment, and one has to imagine that NASA engineers might have thought about this in advance and fitted a slightly more robust camera, since, apart from anything else, it had to endure the stresses and strains of takeoff. It goes on and on.

The root of this laughable conspiracy theory is the 1978 film Capricorn 1. That's the beginning, middle and end of it.

The real fakers were the Russians. The first manned space flight was staged to give them a boost in propaganda. The space and missile gap were false, used to keep the US populace in fear thus allowing increased spending on NASA and military.

Well the missile gap was a falsehood, but that was becuase of poor intelligence. Are you saying the Russians faked their part of the space race, or the Americans faked it? Becuase if the Russians did, it's hard to imagine why the US wouldn't blow the whistle and humiliate them, unless your saying the Russians faked it, and then the Americans just went along with it for funding, which wouldn't fly with me since while they were the only ones launching rockets they weren't the only ones watching.

The flag waving when there's no wind on the moon

the flag broke, it didn't come out all the way, leaving a rippled appearance. the force from pushing it into the ground caused the pole to wave a bit as well.

and the absence of stars in the background

do you see stars in the daytime on earth?
(with the exception of the sun, of course)