Did We Really Land On The Moon?

[Annie]

I watched a rerun of Conspiracy Theory: Did We Really Land On The Moon? last night, and I thought it would spur some different answers. This is the evidence I gathered:

On many pictures, it is obvious that there is more than one light source, as the visible shadows are not parallel and point in different directions. The moon is subject to just one light source: the sun.

The American flag was waving in the airless environment of the moon. It is argued that it was simply fiddled back and forth as the astronaut was adjusting it into the surface.

There was no blast crator beneath the LEM lander. After the blast crator from the LEM engine was created, all the lunar dust around the LEM should have been displaced, yet there's Armstrong's footprint clearly imprinted into the lunar dust just a foot away from the LEM's landing pad. What gives?

There are no stars in the moon sky, yet when you look up at night from earth you see lots of stars.

When the moon film footage is run at double speed it looks like it was filmed on earth, ergo it WAS filmed on earth.

The photographs are perfectly framed and in focus, which would have been difficult to achieve as the cameras were adjusted on the space suits.

The Van Allen radiation belts surrounding the Earth would have fried the astronauts with a lethal dose of radiation.

Most of it is very convincing, but make the judgment for yourself.

[Dave Herald]

I voted "no."  I too saw this show.  I mean if Armstrong was the first person person on the moon, who did film him??  This is what really makes me disagree.

The flag, waving in the air with small amounts of air?  It actually could wave because it don't take air to create wind.  My science teacher taugh a whole class time about that one thing.  

But yes, when doubled, it does appear as if they are just on Earth.

[.Hunting:High:and:Low.]

I saw that when it first aired. After watching it, I was scared. Seriously scared. If our government can do that, they can do anything. My grandfather thought that when they first landed, saying it was done in Hollywood, and everyone thought he was nuts.

I didn't vote, because I am of the opinion that we most likely didn't land on the moon... at that specific time. I did a report on the JFK presidency and the moon landing. And let me tell you, he had a lot to lose if they didn't make it before the Russians (I really wish I hadn't lost that report, that was probably one of my best and I spent more than 40-50 hours on that puppy).

NASA's repsonses, if I remember correctly, had no real answer to the questions proposed by the "non-believers".

Quite freaky, IMO.

[Toxic-Avenger]

Yes.

I love being the dissenter, don't you?    

1)  The shadows:  It's been awhile since I saw this program, but those shadows were uneven but so was the moon's surface where the shadows were.  

2)  The flag waving:  There is a solar wind and there's been talk for years of building a spacecraft that would use this wind, actually photons streaming from the sun.  But you can also see the astronaut's hand rotating back and forth trying to shove the flagpole into the dust.  

3)  <<There was no blast crator beneath the LEM lander. After the blast crator from the LEM engine was created, all the lunar dust around the LEM should have been displaced, yet there's Armstrong's footprint clearly imprinted into the lunar dust just a foot away from the LEM's landing pad. What gives?>>

Not quite.  What the producers of this show fail to understand is that since there is no air and very little gravity on the moon, it doesn't take much to move things around.  The blast from the LM did not have to be as powerful as it does on Earth.  And since the low to no atmosphere on the moon is so thin, it's not as dense so it cannot push much out of the way.  Winds on Mars blow at 100 miles per hour, but the air is so thin, it would just feel like a light breeze.  
 
3)  No stars?  Here is another example of where the people who made this show are incredibly unobservant of the world around them.  Go outside in a brightly lit parking lot and tell me how many stars you can see.  Just the brightest ones and a few planets right?  On the moon, which has no atmosphere, the sun is intensely bright and the high contrast between the black of space and brightly lit moon would wash out any starlight.  

4)  And when you slow down film that was made on Earth, it looks like it was filmed on the moon.  Ergo, it must have been filmed underwater.  Hey Fox, that doesn't mean anything.    
 
5)  The Perfectly Framed Photos:  NASA is not going to release off-centered pictures or people would complain that with all the money being spent, "Why can't these guys take decent pictures."  

6)  <<The Van Allen radiation belts surrounding the Earth would have fried the astronauts with a lethal dose of radiation. >>

Not true.  The Van Allen belts are just not that strong.  With the logic that Fox is using, if the belts are strong enough to fry the astronauts, then I would think that with Jupiter and Saturn being the largest planets in our solar system, the belts would be even stronger.  So why haven't they fried any of the probes we've sent to and past them?

<<if Armstrong was the first person person on the moon, who did film him??>>

Somebody had to.

If the moon landing was a hoax, how could we possibly have kept that a secret for 30 some years?  Especially with the security breaches we experience on a daily basis.  You know how it is, we call something "top secret."  

"I can't tell you anything but here's a paper I wrote up on it, you'll find everything in there."

You know Russia was doing everything it can during the Space Race to find out what we were doing.  They would have found out very soon, some way somehow.  

[Annie]

I love being the dissenter, don't you?
It brings a degree of interest to a debate, hmm?      
 
But you can also see the astronaut's hand rotating back and forth trying to shove the flagpole into the dust.
You also notice that when he lets go, it continues to wave.  
 
NASA is not going to release off-centered pictures or people would complain that with all the money being spent, "Why can't these guys take decent pictures."
How likely is that there are any perfectly framed and focused pictures, if the astronauts were to control the cameras with their suits?
 
The Van Allen belts are just not that strong.  With the logic that Fox is using, if the belts are strong enough to fry the astronauts, then I would think that with Jupiter and Saturn being the largest planets in our solar system, the belts would be even stronger.  So why haven't they fried any of the probes we've sent to and past them?
Have you noticed the protection? Or the lack thereof? A simple aluminium foil.
 
If the moon landing was a hoax, how could we possibly have kept that a secret for 30 some years?  Especially with the security breaches we experience on a daily basis.  You know how it is, we call something "top secret."
It's also interesting that 10 astronauts and employees of NASA died under suspicious circumstances. Coincidence?    
 
You know Russia was doing everything it can during the Space Race to find out what we were doing.  They would have found out very soon, some way somehow.
The Russians weren't planning to send men to the moon. They were aware of the dangers and risks involved.

[.Hunting:High:and:Low.]

Annie, good points.

How likely is that there are any perfectly framed and focused pictures, if the astronauts were to control the cameras with their suits?

VERY good point. Have you seen those cameras? They are hard to maneuver, and it would be damn near impossible to get a perfect shot, like many of those released by NASA.

Not true.  The Van Allen belts are just not that strong.  With the logic that Fox is using, if the belts are strong enough to fry the astronauts, then I would think that with Jupiter and Saturn being the largest planets in our solar system, the belts would be even stronger.  So why haven't they fried any of the probes we've sent to and past them?

Not true. Russians sent monkey up, monkey came back crispy. So they were trying. Oh yes, but that aluminum foil worked just so well for us.  
 <br>If the moon landing was a hoax, how could we possibly have kept that a secret for 30 some years?  Especially with the security breaches we experience on a daily basis.  You know how it is, we call something "top secret."

The government has also released viruses and bacteria in San Francisco and NYC in the 1950's to see "what would happen". How many know about that, and how often is it brought up?  According to a "conspriracy theory" book that I am reading, only the top officials knew about the "landing". Even the people who were monitoring the shuttle were in the dark. So if that is true, then it wouldn't be hard to keep the masses entertained with a fake landing.

I have a question that I think is interesting (came from the book I was reading): If the moon was proven "sterile", why were the astronauts held in quarantine for so long? Make sure they were sane? What?

I just find it hard to believe that we could put a man on the moon when we barely had color television. <shrugs>

[Toxic-Avenger]

<<You also notice that when he lets go, it continues to wave.>>

Yep, solar wind.  The thin air and low gravity help too, it's not going to stop immediately.

<<How likely is that there are any perfectly framed and focused pictures, if the astronauts were to control the cameras with their suits? >>

It's not impossible to take a centered picture without looking through the lens.  Or even that difficult, and I'm amazed that the producers of a video production would even question that.  Try it, go get a camera and it can be a big thing with a heavy lens, a digital camera or a disposable.  <br>Have a friend stand a few feet away, say about 5-10 feet away from you.  <br>Hold the camera away from you, at about chest level.  Have your friend stand right in front of you and have her look into the lens of the camera.  "Click."  <br>Try it a few times, you're going to get more centered pictures than not.  <br>
The cameras may have been heavy but not like 300 pounds with minds of their own always bucking and moving around, "Stop that, hey, get back here!"  <br>   <br><<Have you noticed the protection? Or the lack thereof? A simple aluminium foil.>>

The Van Allen belts are not as equally thick throughout.  Some areas are to be avoided, the Apollo flight path was to go through the thinnest parts of the belts.  Plus the particles are not that energized and it doesn't take that much to stop them and the shell of the spacecraft wasn't that thin.

<<It's also interesting that 10 astronauts and employees of NASA died under suspicious circumstances. Coincidence? >>

What about the other astronauts and 10,000 other employees?    
  <br><<The Russians weren't planning to send men to the moon. They were aware of the dangers and risks involved.  >>

Very true, but they would have loved the idea that we faked it and it would have been political suicide for the next several presidencies.  They would have found out the day it happened and we couldn't have done enough to stop it.

<<VERY good point. Have you seen those cameras? They are hard to maneuver, and it would be damn near impossible to get a perfect shot, like many of those released by NASA. >>

Like I said, it's neither impossible or that hard to do.  See above.  Try it.  <br>
<<Not true. Russians sent monkey up, monkey came back crispy. So they were trying. Oh yes, but that aluminum foil worked just so well for us. >>

Sure, but that would happen with those tie-em up suits.  These things were leather, not foil, fiberglass and polymers.  Most likely they suffered the effects of re-entry.  We have communications satellites orbiting 22,000 miles up or more in stationary orbits above the Earth.  These are at the edges of the belts which expand once in awhile, and the satellites never have any problems.    
  <br><<theory" book that I am reading, only the top officials knew about the "landing". Even the people who were monitoring the shuttle were in the dark.>>

Which mission?  All of which were/are televised unless the latest episode of, When Animals Throw Up and, I-Hate-U-Dating ExXxtreme is on.

<<So if that is true, then it wouldn't be hard to keep the masses entertained with a fake landing.>>

It would cost more to fake a landing than to actually do it.  <br>
<<I have a question that I think is interesting (came from the book I was reading): If the moon was proven "sterile", why were the astronauts held in quarantine for so long? Make sure they were sane? What?>>

Probably.  Remember that these guys spent a week or so in low to no gravity environments and not alot was known about space travel on the body.  They got beat up pretty good.  Your heart weakens because it doesn't have to work against gravity.  Your spine lengthens--you grow about an inch because gravity is not compressing your spine.  You get birdlegs because the muscles in your legs atrophy.  <br>
You lose strength all around.  Plus the astronauts have and still have to get used to being in a full-gravity environment.  One of the funniest things I heard about that is when someone came home from a month long stay in space, he was at home and he held a cup out and released it and it fell.  He kept forgetting he couldn't do that.

<<I just find it hard to believe that we could put a man on the moon when we barely had color television.>>

You would be amazed at what's out there now, but hasn't been realeased yet.  Maybe even a crash-proof Windows PC.

[Annie]

What about the other astronauts and 10,000 other employees?
Do you really think NASA would let every employee in on the secret?

Sure, but that would happen with those tie-em up suits. These things were leather, not foil, fiberglass and polymers.
To survive the Van Allen belt, at least six feet of protection would be necessary. Clearly it isn't possible for the astronauts have survived the belt with the little protection they had.

It would cost more to fake a landing than to actually do it.
I don't think so. They had about 50 billion dollars in budget. With that, you'd think they could produce a believeable fake mission.

[dubiety]

What exactly would be the point of faking a landing on the moon? Why would the government spend "about 50 billion dollars in budget" to do that?

[.Hunting:High:and:Low.]

^^ The US had a big thing with the Russians. They (the Russians) were "pretty close" to going to  the moon, but decided it couldn't be done in the end (hence the crispy monkey). Kennedy also kept saying that we would be at the moon by the end of the decade I believe it was. It was a big ego trip at the time between the Russians and Americans. Kennedy was making promises that he (I believe) couldn't keep in the end, so they had to fake it.

[Annie]

What exactly would be the point of faking a landing on the moon? Why would the government spend "about 50 billion dollars in budget" to do that?
It was somewhat of a silent agreement between the US and the Soviet Union that the first country to reach the moon would win the Cold War.
The United States, knowing that the expedition was impossible, spent the $50 billion faking the mission.

As an answer to your question, the point was that America was attempting to save face by supposedly sending the first men to the moon. Knowing that they were willing to spend so much on it says something, don't you think?

[pettyluv]

First I'd like to think that we have landed on the moon, but the past few years I have questioned my belief a little.  What I'd like to know is why we haven't gone back since the 70's?  

<<It was somewhat of a silent agreement between the US and the Soviet Union that the first country to reach the moon would win the Cold War.  >>

I don't think that idea is even practical.  I dont think that the USSR ever had a real shot at winning the Cold War.  The Soviet system was just to flawed, and the people were hungry and discontented.  The fall of communism was inevitable.

[Toxic-Avenger]

<<Do you really think NASA would let every employee in on the secret? >>

Everyone knew something about the mission, or there would have been serious problems.

<<To survive the Van Allen belt, at least six feet of protection would be necessary. Clearly it isn't possible for the astronauts have survived the belt with the little protection they had. >>

I see this one won't be solved here.  

<<It would cost more to fake a landing than to actually do it.  I don't think so. They had about 50 billion dollars in budget. With that, you'd think they could produce a believeable fake mission. >>

I wasn't sure what was being referred to, the landing on the moon, or a space shuttle landing.

<<why we haven't gone back since the 70's?>>

NASA's budget has been slashed ever since the moon landings stopped, and TV ratings went down.  People want money to be spent on more "realistic" projects such as social programs that don't work but are hidously expensive.  You can't do serious research when your budget is in constant flux and you have to make do with less and less.

<<It was somewhat of a silent agreement between the US and the Soviet Union that the first country to reach the moon would win the Cold War.  >>

If that's true then why was there still a Cold War lasting 20 and 30 years more after the moon landings?  

[Ms.Thang_Has-It-All]

I saw this subject on www.unsolvedmysteries.com under conspiracy theories.  They said that the reason that they did that type of hoax is beacause they did that around the the Vietnaam War ! They created such a hoax to get peoples mind off the war ! Thats similar to what they did in the movie Wag The Dog! In that movie the current president had an affair with a minor right before elections. So what he did was create a war to get peoples attention of his "bad" situation so he could possibly get re-elected !

On the website, they were better able to expain in more detail than I was! I'd suggest going there! It's pretty good.

[Ich Liebe Rammstein]

I'm not really sure on that one. I mean,every picture I've seen of the moon has gravity on it. Unless  it's illustrated. But I don't know. We could have.




                         ~~~~~~Heather,(Edward Furlong,Mike Shinoda,Chester Bennington,KidRock & Joe C. LOVER!!!!! Linkin Park RULES!!!!!!)