Do u believe the landing on the moon was fake?

Question

Do u believe the landing on the moon was fake?

Answer 1

No i definitely believe that the moon has some particles that let us land on it

Answer 2

That is ridiculous.  It angers me that some people would believe that the moon landing was faked.  For one thing, consider the number of people who were involved in the missions, wouldn't there be several people stepping forward and stating that it was a big production?  Also, it's upsetting that a lot of hard working and creative people, that spent a great deal of their time to help make these missions possible, and to have some people totally discredit their efforts.  It would be like you spending years studying architecture, then you went off to build a beautiful home, then shortly afterwards someone comes along and states that you never really did the work.

Here are some other things to consider.  First, if we never visited the moon, then how are so many things still left on the moon?  For example, there are range finders on the moon to measure the distance between Earth and the moon, there are seismograms to measure moonquakes, and several other devices have been left on its surface.  

Also, the Russians tracked all of the flights, wouldn't the Russian government love to step up and say that it didn't happen...but yet, they didn't.

I'd also recommend watching this video and looking at the sources below:  http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/85076...

Answer 3

I don't think so.

Answer 4

No points for being unoriginal. This question is asked weekly. Here's the list of the most recent times. Read through them and pick an answer you like.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/search/searc...

Answer 5

Anyone who believes in such a baseless lie is dishonoring the effort of several hundred thousand Americans who working together built the miracle of the ages.  The stuff we left on the moon will remain untouched as mountain ranges rise and fall on Earth.  Many paid for this triumph of engineering and science with their lives.  You say volumes about yourself when you embrace this childish fantasy.  I see no reason to offer you proof.  

Answer 6

no i dont. but its a very interesting theory.  

Answer 7

Of course. Everyone knows the moon is really made of green cheese.

Answer 8

no it was real

Answer 9

it was just as fake as 9/11

Answer 10

No, I believe it was real. There has been enough proof that it was real.

Why do people insist on proclaiming it was all a setup?

Answer 11

eh yes it was really the sahara but nobody could tel in balck and white

Answer 12

This question is asked several times a day.

No, the Moon landings were not faked.  There are a few theories trying to claim it wast: those theories essentially grasp at straws trying to explain away the mountain of evidence that supports the authenticity of the Apollo project.

No one with actual qualifications in photographic analysis doubts that the photos are real.

No one with expertise in aerospace technology doubts that the machinery could have worked.

No one with astrophysics training believes that the environment would have been too harsh.

No one with credentials in historical research doubts that the events were properly and credibly documented.

What's left are a few disgrunted, ignorant people with lame arguments that fool only people who don't take the time to learn the facts.  Those proponents simply want money and attention.  Don't believe me?  Call up Bart Sibrel and ask him how much he charges for a personal appearance to present his hogwash.  Ask him if he'll take questions afterwards.

Sure, you'll hear lots of handwaving claims about how we can't trust the government, and probably some nonsense about radiation or crosshairs in pictures.  The FACTS are clear: the Moon landings are authentic.

Answer 13

The moon landing was one of the most important events in recent scientific history. It showed that man could not only study the universe, but also travel among the universe's other bodies. Just 100 years ago, it was considered impossible.

But with all of this achievement came a great deal of controversy. The theory that the moon landing was faked was started by the "Flat Earth Society" by a formal NASA employee. Apparently, he left NASA because of "personal reasons". Their conspiracy theories didn't pick up until the late 20th century.

Personally, I have yet to hear a convincing conspiracy theory that doesn't crumble when its introduced to basic science and logic.

--------------------------------------...

MOON INFORMATION: Before one can understand the science behind the moon landing, they must know some basic information about the moon.

The moon has no atmosphere. Although recent scientific study has shown that there may be a very thin atmosphere over the moon, it is so small that it didn't affect the Apollo astronauts, and it has gone undetected for decades. This atmosphere, if there actually is one, wouldn't weigh more than 1-2 metric tons.

The moon has no air. Well, it does have some gasses, but they are not nearly as dense as the air here on Earth. They aren't even dense enough to have been detected through normal equipment. It takes ultra sensitive equipment to detect these gases. This made no difference on the Apollo missions. It is better to say that the moon has no air, because any gasses that it does have, aren't dense enough to make any difference.

The moon's surface is HIGHLY reflective. It reflects the sun's light at such an extent that astronauts had to wear helmets with sun visors when they were walking on the moon.

--------------------------------------...

CONSPIRACY THEORIES:

THEORY 1: "Why was the flag waving on an airless moon?" When people look at pictures of the flag the US astronauts planted on the moon, they often assume that it is waving because of the ripples in the flag. In a majority of these pictures, the flag isn't waving at all. The flag was folded in the lunar module since take off. The same thing would've happened if they had brought tissue paper with them. Because of their being little gravity, and no air, the crumples didn't even out at all. So it gave the  effect of the flag waving. But why was it standing upright? NASA had specially designed this flag. One of the special parts about it, is that there was a horizontal bar attached to the upper end of the post. This allowed the flag to display the stars and stripes.

There is one video floating around on YouTube where an Apollo astronaut walks by the flag, and as a result, the flag appears to move as a result of the astronaut's passing. This took me a while to figure out. This idea was first introduced by the top answerer, "Brant", on the Astronomy and Space forum on Yahoo Answers. His idea was that the Co2 exhaust port was located on a position on the space suit that blew some Co2 on the flag. The problem was, he had no way of confirming it. Apparently, blue prints of the Apollo space suits are hard to come across. But after doing some digging, I found a website that shows the basic structure of the Apollo space suit. The Co2 exhaust port was located at a position on the space suit that could have blown the flag when the astronaut walked passed. I reviewed the video, and the position matched up. This means that the Co2 exhaust was what caused the flag to move. Some may argue that the flag didn't move enough for this to have happened. The Apollo astronauts had a re-breather system that scuba divers use today. There was only a slight exhaust of Co2 because a majority of the air was used again by the re-breather system.

Theory 1 refuted.

THEORY 2: "Why were the multiple shadows, when the sun is the only light source on the moon." This is true... the sun is the only light source on the moon. And when you look at the photos, you do often see multiple shadows, The reason behind this is fairly simple. The Apollo lunar module has highly reflective. This is in part because of the sheets of foil that protected the astronauts from radiation. This shot the light in multiple directions, causing the effect of multiple shadows. Now if we were to recreate the Apollo scene in a movie studio today, and we used the most powerful, high intensity light man is capable of producing, we wouldn't create enough light to show only one shadow in a different direction. In order to create the kind of shadows on the moon, we would need to have a light source as intense as the sun... and humans haven't come close to producing one like that. The only way shadows like that could've been produced is by using the sun as the only light source.

But still, why were there multiple shadows? The moon's surface. as you remember, is highly reflective. This shot the sun's light in all different directions. Onto the highly reflective lunar module, and the astronauts space suits. They shot light in even more directions, creating the effect of multiple shadows, even though the only light source was the sun. Because of this, the argument of multiple shadows can't be used to argue that the moon landing was faked.

Theory 2 has been refuted.

THEORY 3: "Why were the no stars visible in the photographs? Shouldn't there be more stars than we can see on Earth because there is no atmosphere?" Actually, there are many stars visible in some photographs, but they are hard to see. But why is this? If you have a digital camera, you can use it, and it is dark and clear outside, do the following:

Go outside, and take a picture of the night sky. Now bring the camera back, and print out the photo. How many stars are visible? Very few. Cameras are designed to pick up very bright lights. The stars are not bright. Your picture doesn't have very many stars in it. But the conditions on the moon were even worse for taking night pictures than in your backyard. The moon's surface, again, is highly reflective. The sun's light was being shot into the lens of the camera, making it even harder to pick up the little light the stars give off. If the moon did have an atmosphere like the Earth's, then there would be no chance of stars being visible. But if you look carefully, there are stars in some of the photos. These photos are found in the later missions. NASA wanted to get some pictures, so they tried to alter their cameras to pick up more stars. This didn't work that well, but they did get some better photos.

The cameras in the 70's weren't that great either. Modern technology would get some better pictures. The cameras weren't BAD but they were nothing compared to modern cameras. Modern cameras could probably get a lot more stars visible in the photographs.

Theory 3 has been refuted. Yet another moon landing "conspiracy theory" has been brought down by science and logic.

THEORY 4: "How could the astronauts survive the Van Allen radiation belts with nothing more than a couple of sheets of foil?" This seems to be one of the "moon-hoaxer's" favorites to throw around. Before I can show you why this theory doesn't do anything, you need to know a little tidbit about radiation.

A deadly dose of radiation is about 350-400 rems. But radiation doesn't kill you instantly. You have to exposed for some time. You need to be exposed to 400 rems of radiation for 1.5-2 hours. But the radiation takes time to take affect. After a period of 30 days after exposure, 50 percent of the people exposed will die.

But the Apollo astronauts were only exposed to 2 rems of radiation. But thats not all, they were only exposed to the radiation for 30 minutes. They passed through it quickly and were exposed to a very low dose of radiation.

Dr. Van Allen said publicly that the radiation emitted from the Van Allen radiation belts was no where the amount needed to do any damage to the astronauts. The largest problem the astronauts faced was a minor black out period that lasted no more than 5 minutes, where communications were compromised temporarily.

Theory 4 has been refuted. The creme de la creme of moon landing conspiracy theories has been brought down.

THEORY 5: "If you speed up the footage taken, it appears as if they walking on Earth." No it doesn't! Gravity doesn't change if you slow down a video! That theory doesn't even make sense. I completely disregard that as a conspiracy theory.

--------------------------------------...

What about the evidence that we landed on the moon?

-Laser reflectors were left on the moon. Although rovers today could finish this task, the technology simply didn't exist back then. Astronomers use the laser reflectors today to calculate the position of the moon today. An amateur astronomer could use them if he had a powerful enough laser.

-We brought back over 300 kg of moon rocks. These rocks had not been found on Earth, and we couldn't have made them. They are authentic.

-We were in a space race with Russia. They were monitoring the moon landing more than you or I or anyone else ever will. They were analyzing video, audio, everything. And yet they seemed to have sense enough to know the moon landing was real. Now, you have the ultra ignorant people that deny the Cold War was real.

Answer 14

no. definitely not. even there is a "proof" it cannot explain everything that happen unless you'll ask neil armstrong about it.

Answer 15

The  fraudulent business of saying the Moon landings didn't happen depends on the idiotic idea that people in countries outside the USA in 1969 and later would not have known it was faked.  This depends on the moronic assumption, so frequently seen on Y!A that everyone outside the USA wears grass skirts, lives in mud huts and came down in the last shower of rain.

There were 6 landings on the Moon.  None of them were faked.  If they had been, scientists and engineers in most of Europe, Australia,  Japan etc. and particularly the Soviet Union would have known immediately.

In 1969 there were tens of thousands of radio amateurs around the world.  Any of them with a bit of spare cash could have built antennas and receivers to  pick up signals from the Moon.  If the signals did not come from the Moon, they would have known.  Radio astronomers in countries like Australia and England would have known even better.  

That sort of thing cannot be faked in front of an international audience of scientists, engineers and informed amateurs.  

You also have a fine answer refuting specific points raised by the main hoaxer and liar, Bart Sibrel.  

Answer 16

Well many, if not all of the photo's were definitely with a doubt faked.  The film itself would not survive the moon environment.

So maybe they did go but had to fake the photo's to get good PR.

Answer 17

Of course. But very cleverly performed. So 10 out of 10.

Answer 18

Highly unlikely.

Answer 19

NO.

Answer 20

How is it possible that you missed this when you typed in your question?

http://answers.yahoo.com/search/search_r...

Answer 21

Not at all. If so, where did the moon rocks come from? Also, many evidences dictate the existence of moon landings.

Answer 22

nobody who has the slightest clue what they are talking about would question it, not even for a millisecond. this doesn't say much about you.

so why are you asking this question? it's not smart, nor is it clever. it's just kind of sad.

it happened. deal with it. and since it's a matter of historical fact, belief has nothing to do with it.