Did We Land On The Moon? Did we land on the moon?

[adriantc 0]

Did we land on the moon?We take for granted when we hear Neil Armstrong saying "One small step for men, one giant leap for menkind". But did he step on the moon or he really steped in a giant recording studio in Aria 51. Some say men landing on the moon was a giant hoax, the most expansive movie ever made. Why? With a simple search on google you can discover proof of this hoax.1. American flag flaping on the moon which everybody knows has no atmosfere.2. Photos made by the astronauts in (NASA says) different locations seem identical.3. Shadows in the same photos suggest 2 different light sources, but on the moon the sun is the only light source.4. No dust present on the moon lander.5. If you double the speed of the tape with the astronauts walking on the moon, you will see that they seem to run. What I have told you are not the only proofs, only the most important one. I suggest you watch the documentary made by an american tv channel (NBC not sure thought). After seeing that documentary I am wondering if we really landed on the moon...

[Mario 0]

Well its contradictory. Depends, right now i believe that we've landed on the moon.I've heard from both sides and I still think we landed on the moon. There are some weird things about the pictures.

[googlue 0]

All that is really strange. I have seen those movies and have wondered how the American Flag could flap on Moon? But I have never been to Moon, so I do not know whether the American Flag can flap there... May be we can try that with some other Nation's flag and check whether they also flap? You know, things are always different for Americans... :DBut will somebody, as a part of a respected organization have the guts to cook up such a story and stage a hoax? Just for this reason I believe that man has been to the Moon... Now I have heard that India is planning a mission to the Moon... I am pretty sure that they cannot stage a hoax of this nature, Americans will be the first to trip them over :DIf they succeed, then we will be certain that man has really set foot on Moonland!

[s243a 0]

1. American flag flaping on the moon which everybody knows has no atmosfere.

Maybe the flag was especially designed to look like it was flapping. If no air, perhaps some floating dust could agitate a flag a little.

2. Photos made by the astronauts in (NASA says) different locations seem identical.

Identical? The moon does not have the most interesting landscape.

3. Shadows in the same photos suggest 2 different light sources, but on the moon the sun is the only light source.

Perhaps the camera.

4. No dust present on the moon lander.

Would you see it in a black and white phtoto?

5. If you double the speed of the tape with the astronauts walking on the moon, you will see that they seem to run.

Of course the look like the are running. They are bouncing up and down that is what bad runners do.

What I have told you are not the only proofs, only the most important one. I suggest you

 

watch the documentary made by an american tv channel (NBC not sure thought).[/qutoe]

And you believe it because it is on TV? I find it hard to believe that we have to have this debate but I am willing to look at the pictures. Provide links from the NASA site and not your quack documentary.

[adriantc 0]

I should tell you that the documentary in not a hoax. If you would have watched it you would realize that the landing on the moon was a giant hoax. You can see in the movie objects castings shadows in 2 different parts. Is there anyone here who is able to explain that?NASA. There was someone on the documentary representing NASA. He just sad that they landed on the moon. He never sad anything like..guys, objects cast shadows in different parts because... He just sad no not true.

[burgen 0]

the one thing I don't understand is if we have landed the moon 30 years ago, why wouldn't we do it again in recent years? Back then there is tight competetion between US and USR, you would wonder if US can land on the moon, USR would do it also, given that they have the technology at the same level as US back then, but they didn't.

[whyme 0]

Hee's some evdience which I think, is quite contradictory to the fact that we landed on the moon.

- When the U.S declared war on Vietnam, many Americans opposed to this.

- It was so unpopular that the US needed a diversion from this event.

- They decided the "make history" and "land on the moon" so the Americans would be diverted from the war. (Like how George W. Bush diverted American's away from Bin Laden, by insiting that Iraq was more dangerous, but tyhat's another story.)

- After the war ended, the moon landings also promptly ended

- An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260° F to 280° F, in these temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.

- About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.

- There are millions of micro-metors traveling at speeds up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces.

- When the LEM set down on the Lunar surface, it gave out 3000 lb. worth of thrust. This would have created a massive hole underneath the Lunar Module, but in pictures of the Lunar Module, the ground underneath is untouched.

- And how many years has it been now, roughly 30 years, and why haven't we gone back to the moon? NASA says it's too darned expensive, but some how the can afford billions to send robots to mars and jupiter? Confused

- lastly when one of the moon landers, Buzz Aldrin, was asked to legally swear that he had been onto the moon, he REFUSED to do it.

It's up to you to decide what's right and what's wrong.

Here are links that show flaws and errors in which NASA claims to be REAL photographs on the moon, as well as ALOT more information on the hoax's

http://batesmotel.8m.com/

http://engineering.illinois.edu/~akapadia/moon.html

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

A simple search on Yahoo, Google, or Dogpile for "Moon landings will show you more results for fake moon landings than actual information on the moon landings.

[grrlfromoz 0]

the one thing I don't understand is if we have landed the moon 30 years ago, why wouldn't we do it again in recent years? Back then there is tight competetion between US and USR, you would wonder if US can land on the moon, USR would do it also, given that they have the technology at the same level as US back then, but they didn't.

45422[/snapback]

I was just wondering that same thing -- why haven't we gone back? They learned all they need to know just on that one trip? Maybe we haven't gone back because it's of the American mind that we should always be doing things "bigger and better." Consumerism and materialsim rule in our Post Modern society. What I'm saying is, maybe the moon is too simple. We have to go way out there to Jupiter or whatever to prove that we're interested in space exploration. (Doesn't seem much to explore if we can actually SEE the moon from our backyards - doesn't seem so impressive and pictures are always in black and white anyway, not nearly so impressive as the red on Mars )

 

I hadn't even ever concidered that we hadn't gone to the moon until I saw that documentary. (I think I saw it on the local PBS station.) The documentary made a pretty convincing arguement I thought.

[no9t9 0]

I didn't see this so called "documentary" about the alleged fake moon landing. But it is totally ridiculous to say that it never happened. It's almost as bad as those freaks that say the holocaust never happened. It is not hard at all to send someone to the moon. It requires a lot of details and it is risky but it is very possible (and DID happen). Just some things that I thought were pretty ridiculous...I would like to point out again that I did not watch the documentary...Flag Flapping Issue - things are able to move in a vacuum. When they stuck the flag into the moon, they undoubtedly caused the flapping. It likely continued to flap for a while since they were in a vacuum and the moon's gravity is so low. There are much less forces there that will stop the flapping.Lighting - How do you know the "other" light source was not from the vehicle they brought to the moon, the light of the video camera, the flash bulb in the picture camera, the moon lander, their space suit, or any other million possibilities? They did have flash lights and light bulbs in the 60's you know. Finally, the Earth is also a source of light!! Just as the moon is a source of light on earth, the opposite is true.Crater under LEM - I don't know what they landed on. Could have been solid rock beneath that moon dust.Dust on Lander - First, pictures may not pick it up. Second, gravity on the moon is much less than earth. Even on earth, dust takes a LONG TIME to settle. It would take even longer on the moon.Temperature - On the cold side away from the sun or atleast partially away, is nowhere near 280F. Temperature on the moon ranges from about -170C to 100C. Plus, they have space suits that are thermal barriers. 30 years since last moon landing - it IS expensive and there probably isn't much incentive to go back. They brought back tons of samples and the moon really isn't that interesting. They WILL be back, just a matter of time.

[adriantc 0]

I never sad we can't go back now (if we were there in the first place). But still:2nd light source in the photos coundn't be a light bulb, flash or something because they didn't have flashs on their cameras (and by the way the cameras are much to hard to manipule since they are attached to the suits... the question is how did they take that cristal clear, well focused photos). Even if we would have only the photo with the 2nd light source that would have convinced me that we've never been to the moon

[s243a 0]

You're not in the matrix dude

[no9t9 0]

2nd light source in the photos coundn't be a light bulb, flash or something because they didn't have flashs on their cameras (and by the way the cameras are much to hard to manipule since they are attached to the suits... the question is how did they take that cristal clear, well focused photos). Even if we would have only the photo with the 2nd light source that would have convinced me that we've never been to the moon

45546[/snapback]

crystal clear photos? how hard is that? besides, how do you know those photos weren't cleaned up? photo development techniques can be used to improve picture quality you know. polariods (instant pictures) were point and shoot and they too very decent pictures... These cameras were invented by 1948 (google it). That means instant picture technology was already 20+ years old by the time they went to the mooon. So I highly doubt that taking a clear picture would be that hard.

 

so your arguement hinges on the photo with the second light source? man... I am sure there was at least ONE light bulb on the space ship and if there somehow wasn't any... you still have the light from earth. Or did you conveniently miss that part of my message?

 

think about it.. on a dark, cloudless night with no street lights or glow from the city, the moon is VERY bright. Remember the blackout that happened to the east coast and canada? It was like midnight and it was pretty bright outside..

 

Now consider this, you are on the moon. It is dark because you are on the night side of the moon (or maybe dusk). The Earth will be shining and casting a bright light on the moon. The Earth is MUCH bigger than the moon and will reflect much more light compared to the moon. Think how bright the moon is and imagine how much brighter the earth would be since it is many times the size of the moon. Next, there is no atmosphere on the moon so there would be no clouds to block the light.

[cse-icons 0]

yeah, I too have seen the documentary. There are a few forwards also in circulation with photographs and the irregularities.The shadows and the flapping flag are certainly good enough to raise doubts. and if u think long enough, the logical thing is that if we have gone there once, why did they not go again. It has been a long time since and the technological progress would ensure that we gather more important data which can be used by the scientists. Its not like that they had collected all the data that time. Moreover what i suppose is that if the landing was real, then there wud definitely have been more missions. btw all said, no9t9 what made the flag flutter when there is no atmosphere.The foot-prints would not have been so deep, since the gravity is 1/6th that on earth. All the facts put forward in the documentary seem to have a reason.Also, it has been long since the documentary was released but I have not heard of any comments/clarification to the doubts raised in the documentary by the space agency in question.

[ZeXLR8er 0]

One theory about the flag flapping is that because there is no atmosphere, there would be no fristion between the flag and the air, thus nothing to slow down the motion of the flag once it has started moving. So it would be like this: you wack the flag in the groud, making the material shake,then becuase there is no friction it would continue to shake indefinetly until you stopped it. It could still be shaking now for all we know.

[gotspooned 0]

LOL! That's really funny to me. Seems like SOMEONE has a lot of free time. Very insteresting argument though. ... lol!