How many of you believe the moon landing was a hoax ?

Question

I saw a documentary which really changed my opion and I am very certain its a hoax hwoever my parenst where not convinced just wondering what the rest of the world think ?

Answer 1

It's not a hoax. My family knew one of the astronauts, they really did it.

The people that would have you believe it was a hoax are not people to be trusted. Remember everyone has their own agenda and not every one speaks the truth.

Answer 2

Well we should be careful from media. Media can tell us wrong things.

Answer 3

It's amazing how influential one third-rate "documentary" can be over the minds of the general public. Even more amazing is the willingness of the public to believe the discredited "evidence" of one tv show, against the testimony and documentation provided by hundreds of people who worked on the Apollo programme.

Answer 4

i will never, ever understand this. why is it that people can watch a documentary, believe that every single word of it is true, and in the process disregard another documentary or event. it will forever boggle my mind.

but back to the question; NO.

let me guess about some of their arguments.

1. the radiation was too strong

2. there was no stars

3. the cross hairs bled through

4. there was no blast crater

5. the flag waved

6. the shadows dont line up

7. the heat wouldve melted the film

8. blah blah

if i told you that i could explain every single one of those in a perfectly reasonable, and 100% correct way, would you believe it was real? o well ill try.

1. the power of the van allen belt was grossly over estimated. it is composed of alpha and beta particles. alpha particles can literally be stopped by a piece of paper, no problem there. beta particles can be stopped by a few millimeters of lead. the massive hull of the space shuttle took care of that. overall, they were exposed to the weakest part of the belt for a total of 30 minutes. they received the same amount of radiation as a chest x-ray.

2. there were no stars because of the exposure time of the camera. the sun was so bright the exposure time on the camera had to be set pretty much as short as possible as to not get a completely white picture. the exposure time was so short that weak light from most stars didnt have time to register

3. the cross hairs bled through simply because of over exposure, it happens all the time on normal photographs. i cant really get more technical than that.

4. there was no blast crater because of several reasons. the shuttle was capable of producing 10,000 pounds of thrust. but it had a throttle. while landing, they produced about 3,000 pounds of thrust. the nozzle was 54 inches across. that comes to 2300 square inches. if you do the math, you get about 1.3 pounds of force per inch. thats the the nozzle. on earth, we have an atmosphere that contains the blast to a column facing directly downwards. that doesnt happen on the moon. the exhaust spreads out at an amazingly fast speed. very little of it actually touched the ground. so all in all, its safe to say that there was less than half a pound of pressure per square inch.

5. watch the video. the flag doesnt wave if its not bumped.

6. the shadows dont line up because the surface of the moon isnt flat. a shadow has to project on to a surface. if there is a small valley or hill, as pretty much the entire surface of the moon is, the shadows are going to land on there. so its not the shadows that dont match up, its the surface of the moon.

7. this assertion is just dumb. yes, it was extremely hot in space, or rather there was alot of energy. heat requires matter. there was no way for heat to transfer to the film. transfer of heat requires convection, basically 2 molecules have to touch. there is no atmosphere on the moon, so that couldnt have happened.

8. blah blah blah, we landed on the moon.

anymore questions? [e-mail]. email me if you have any more doubts.

Answer 5

i think a couple of the man landings wwere fake like apollo 11 and another one there were 6 of them i think

Answer 6

I'd say true,they went there so many times that they were bound to c**k up big time if they did film it at some point. All these conspiricy theorists ever look at is the first time. Even if that was faked, i recon one of the other times must have been real.  

Answer 7

Think about it. If you were obsessed enough, you could make a documentary showing how the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima was faked. You could make a film showing how Christian Barnard never really did a heart transplant, or that the Trieste never went to the bottom of the Marianis Trench. (These were all before Apollo.) If you allow yourself to lie and use "experts" who are psychotics and quacks, along with a narrator with a British accent, you'll have a documentary fit for Fox.  Indeed, there are many neo-n***s and Islamic fundamentalists who are trying very hard to convince us that the Holocaust was a post-war hoax perpetrated by Israel and the Allies.  There are also those who are firmly committed to the belief that the earth is flat. Go to their site and you will see much of the same kind of argument that you saw in the Moon hoax video.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonsk...

Sounds scholarly, doesn't it?  Somebody with no knowledge of his/her own might be influenced by it.  But you know the earth is spherical, don't you?  So use that as a comparison.  Don't be surprised if Fox or the History channel come up with a documentary making the claim that the earth is flat.

You might also note that those who come here believing in this moon hoax nonsense don't have a Q&A record which would indicate that they have any expertise in this field.  My own record doesn't show much, but there are people here whose records do: like Brant, Ken, gn, and the guy with all the strange characters in his screen name.

Answer 8

The Moon landing? Singular? You certainly are misinformed.

The SIX Apollo Moon landings are among the best documented events in human history: thousands of pictures, hours of video, nearly half a ton of Moon rocks, and millions of eye witnesses, including myself. There is not a single scientist in the world who doubts that they took place. To deny them is to discredit the magnificent achievement of the team which went to the Moon, and to reveal abysmal scientific ignorance.

You obviously haven't done any serious research on this topic, but are just repeating some lies you've heard on some cheap TV show or YouTube. All of your points have been refuted in detail on web sites like these:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxap...

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

http://www.clavius.org/

Answer 9

Yes they did land on the moon, only people who

- hate the government

- know less science than a Highschool student

- want to make money with their books and videos

- simply are trolling

claim otherwise.

For your benefit I will assume that you belong to the second category.

NASA has i.e.

- eyewitnesses

- a whole load of documentation (including the tracking data from foreign countries)

- thousands of pictures

- hours of film

- the laser reflectors

- >300kg of moonrocks

- a congratulation from the russians

Most of the landingdeniers counterclaims don't even need an expert to be shown wrong, they are just stupid. .

Just one example:

Hoaxers claim that the flag was waving in some wind

Now everyone who bothers to do some research (instead of relying on the fraudulent Snippets the Hoaxers show) will find out, that the flag was held up by a wire, and appeared only to be waving while (and shortly after) being handled by one of the astronauts.

You also have to ask yourself if it is really believeable that NASA would miss a waving flag if they wanted to fake it?

Now certain  answerers may claim otherwise but if you read their stuff, and all the answers in the questions there they participated you will notice that all their "evidence" has been debunked numerous times.

Do they acknowledge it? Are they even try to explain why the explantions given are incorrect? No, they just repeat the same bunch of lies over and over again. That should give you an idea about their  honesty...

Answer 10

I think it might be a hoax.  

Answer 11

Slick documentaries which present only one view can be convincing to those who don't have a lot of knowledge in a certain area, can't they?

It might be hard for you to believe, but every single claim made in that documentary is completely bogus. You can determine this for yourself by going to the Clavius site.  You'll be amazed how each of these so-called proofs comes completely unraveled when you see all the facts.

http://www.clavius.org/

Bart Sibrel, the creater of the documentary, has even cheated in presenting some of the evidence.  There are some youtube videos which show how he did it. He cropped one photograph in order to claim that NASA hoaxed it. He also re-mixed audio with video to make it look like NASA hoaxed another segment. He's a liar and a cheat, who was fired from his part-time news cameraman job for trespassing and harassment of Neil Armstrong. One of his chief supporters who appeared as an "expert" in the documentary is Ralph Rene, is also a fraud. He is credited as being a physicist.  He never even graduated from college.  He also claims that Einstein and Newton were wrong, and MENSA threatened to sue him for fraudulently claiming they supported his views.  In addition, he claims the earth has no equatorial bulge and that the US government committed the 9-11 attacks.

Bill Kaysing, another major player, is also credited with expertise and employment in a company closely associated with Apollo.  Turns out he has a degree in English and was only an editor for that company's journal. He wrote the original moon hoax book back in the 80's and he has no degree or experience in engineering or science.

Sibrel, of course, has no degrees, either. And neither do any of the so-called "experts" in the documentary. As confident and cocky as they sound, not one of them has any idea what he is talking about.

Forty years of rocket scientists and geologists around the world have never challenged the authenticity of the Apollo missions. That includes the Soviets, who were in a race to the moon with the US. The only objectors are uncredentialed quacks, frauds, and liars. Tell you something?

So why would any television network air such garbage? Ratings. The controversial nature of it gets viewers. They couldn't care less about the truth. There is no law against deliberate lying on television or in books. The television network, (Fox?), will always be able to fall back on their oft-used disclaimer that it was never presented for any reason other than entertainment. Same with the 2012 end-of-the-world documentary repeatedly aired by the History Channel.

Please add to your question or e-mail me if there is anything in the documentary which you feel is not adequately debunked on the Clavius site or any other legitimate ones like the Bad Astronomer site.

Then remember, whenever you see anything on television: they will air whatever gets an audience, and conspiracy theories will always do that.  In the meantime, they have insulted the thousands of dedicated and talented people who made perhaps the greatest achievement in history.

Edit: Quasar, no real evidence to prove what -- the hoax claims or the fact of the landings?  Several hundred pounds of moon rocks were distributed to scientists all over the world.  Not one of the geological and mineralogical experts to examine these samples has ever challenged their authenticity.  They have examined them with mass spectrometers and scanning microscopes and all sorts of sophisticated technology which would have easily revealed that they came from anywhere on this planet -- including Antarctica.  They came from the moon.

We left reflectors on the moon and carefully (manually) aimed them back to earth.  They have been bouncing lasers off of them since 1969.  

The Soviets monitored us every step of the way.  They had to aim their receivers AT THE MOON to get the live transmissions from the crews that landed there.  Those should be proof enough -- especially when every single objection of these uncredentialed hoax accusers is easily debunked.

Many people are gullible and easily led from the truth, even when the evidence of that truth is overwhelming.  Just look at the acquittal of OJ Simpson in his double murder trial.

I don't blame people for being ignorant of the facts.  I blame them for CHOOSING to be that way.

Answer 12

I personally think it wasn't a hoax, but honestly my opinion about everything changes as soon as new evidence pops up. So I'm not going to stick to my opinion just because it worked six months ago.

Answer 13

I want badly to believe that it's true, but you can't just believe what the government says, u also can't believe what theorist say.  We will probably never know for sure.  

Answer 14

Which is more probable?

We went to the moon with less computer power than a modern digital watch, and we're going again. Then to Mars and off to Zeta Reticuli.

or

Your government has sold you out and wants to force this on you:

http://www.verichipcorp.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0gXGTcd6...

Check this out:

Lawn furniture or super groovy interplanetary spaceship of the naive 60's?

http://moonmovie.com/images/AS11-40-5922...

(make sure to enlarge in order to really get a good look at American engineering at its finest at that time period)

Answer 15

Anyone dumb enough to believe a "documentary" with made-up "facts" is probably not smart enough to believe in the truth. What else do you not believe in? WWII? The Civil War? Iceland?

Here's a sampling of all the times this stupid question has been asked recently. You probably believe in the 2012 hoax, too.

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

Answer 16

So far, there is no real evidence to prove it!

Answer 17

Honestly, as many cool things we've done in the past decade. I don't think that it was a hoax. There is definitely a strong chance that the government is lying to us, but I doubt that they could get away with something as big as someone landing on the moon. Some scientist would call them out on it, right?

Answer 18

I find it odd that, you know, with companies out there putting out sugar-obsesity-bombs they call "food" which is turning us into a nation of fat people and diabetics, with cigarette companies that denied for decades there was a link to cancer, with tire companies that put out tires that blow up and kill people, with toy companies putting out lead-covered products for young children that put them in their mouths, that the FIRST IMPULSE of the moon hoax people is to believe that a company which is known to put SALES over truth (That would be FOX), would be a reliable source.

You don't believe everything you read about aliens in the National Enquirer do you?

Well never mind.  The real problem here is that very few people in the course of growing up encounter genuine arguments.  So they fold up and collapse when they encounter someone who is trying to shine them on: that's what FOX did with this "documentary."  

It's a real disservice to the United States, to engineering, to any sense of technological progress, to just get into this and assume it is faked.  The satellite program preceded the moon program.  The SURVEYOR series tested the basic engineering used to land an Apollo--take a look at one of the SURVEYOR craft that landed on the moon (un-manned) and you'll see the design influences.  The Russians landed un-manned exploration craft in the 1970s and confirmed the samples brought back by astronauts.

What the moon hoax is, is as follows:  "Hi, we're Fox.  We've found up enough advertisers to pay us $150,000 over the next hour to show you this documentary, and we're going to take you for a ride.  There is a book deal too.  We don't care that you'll be running around ignorant for the rest of your life.  Obviously you were asleep in class.  Next week we will show you that the American Revolution did not occur and thatt there is substantial evidence that George Washington was a spy for England."  

Did you know that the moon program was responsible for the popularization of Velcro?  You use it every day.  The moon program in a thousand different ways is integrated into the basic technological development of world civilization.  So when you think you're "being smart by being skeptical" here you're in fact saying: One day I sat and watched a 60 minute program and now I'm really well educated.  I'm a smart person that knows the moon program did not happen."

OK, you're smart, you're  a genius.  You watched a TV show.  I'm a gullible fool. Sure.  No moon program.  OK.  

Answer 19

Was this "documentary" aired on fox? If so, then I watched it too. I was able to refute all of their silly theories without thinking twice, and I'd love to do the same for you. Shoot a conspiracy theory out. I'll take care of some of the ordinary ones:

"Why was the flag waving on an airless moon?" The flag wasn't waving. It was held up by a horizontal bar, and was crumpled. The only time it was waving was when an astronaut walked by it and that was because of the Co2 exhaust in their space suit.

"Why were there multiple shadows when the sun is the only light source?" The sun's light shines on the highly reflective lunar surface. The lunar surface shot the light to the highly reflective lunar module, and astronaut's space suites, thus creating the effect of multiple shadows.

"Why were there no stars in the pictures?" Go outside and take a picture of the night sky with your digital camera. Tell me how many stars you get. Now try it with 70's technology. You would get hardly any. And add the fact that the lunar surface was shining the light right into the lense, and you are left with very few visible stars. Some stars are visible in the photos.

"The astronauts couldn't survive the Van Allen radiation belts." Wrong. A lethal dose of radiation is 350-400 rems. This person must be exposed for a period of 1-2 hours. They have a 50 percent chance of dying over the next 30 days. The Apollo astronauts were only subject to 2 rems of radiation over a course of 30 minutes, no where near the lethal dose in terms of amount and time exposed.

Any more? Or have I changed your opinion already? Tell me, I like to know. The moon landing was real. Don't fall into these twisted webs of misleading information and flawed logic.

Answer 20

Its NOT a hoax. There are thousands of people that were involved in that. SOMEONE would have said SOMETHING in the past 40 years if it was fake! There are pictures, videos, rocks from brought back, etc. Also, NASA reflects a laser off the moon every year. How else would that get there?

Answer 21

In the 1960s there were two nations who were possibles at reaching the Moon.  One was the USA, the other was the USSR, the Soviet Union (remember them?).

Now the USA made it there first, and they are still the only nation that has landed people on the Moon.  The USSR were extremely knowledgeable about the technology involved and they never even suggested, from that day to this, that it was faked.  If they had even suspected it was faked, it would have been all over the news in 1969.  

The USSR was not the only nation or organisation that could have detected a fake.  Nearly every moderately advanced country in the world could have done so, including countries like Argentina and New Zealand. In fact radio amateurs could have detected whether signals were coming from the Moon or not and there are tens of thousands of radio amateurs around the world.

I will just say that there is not a sane scientist on the planet who doubts that the Americans landed 12 people on the Moon.  The people behind these documentaries are liars and frauds.  There is an answer for all their lies, most of the answers are obvious to anyone who knows anthing more than diddley squat about photography, radio, chemistry and physics.

Answer 22

Hummm! Interesting!

Does anyone remember the Regan years with the Star Wars Defence shield Bluff?

Now that was very convincing and we all swallowed it for a while and then the cold war ended and the true story came out that it was just a bluff to make the Russians bankrupt!

There was no such thing as the technology was not available and that is why we are having all this trouble with the ground version today (the missile defence system!!)

So why should we not question the 1969 moon landing!

We must remembrance the series of disaster which proceeded the reported landing.

NASA just wasn't ready in 69, and if they did get to the moon back then it would  have been due to the greatest of luck, rather than planning!

I personally have a very open mind on the subject, I know for a fact the man has been to the moon, with a good telescope you can even see the Russian lunar rover.

However the 1969 date dose seem a little premature!

Just as a foot note to those who will say that even the Russians accepted that NASA got there, Remember that the Russians also swallowed the 'StarWars Story' hook, line, and sinker!