It's mind boggling to think about how the government and media could be informing the public of storied/advances that have never even ocurred. Take the moon landing, for example. I really doubt that we landed on the moon.
Good link explaining the reasons people think it's a conspiracy: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
I don't understand how the flag could have been fluttering if there's no wind on the moon. It was on TV, but nobody could actually see anything clearly...yet the photos were perfectly clear. It doesn't make sense. Who was the 1st man on the moon if Neil Armstrong had to be filmed stepping onto the moon by somebody else unless there was a robot-type camera somewhere. How is "United States" brightly lit when there's shadows everywhere else?
It just seems that everything is pointing in the direction of proving NASA wrong. I would like to have more faith in my government, but I really believe that this is just a big lie. I can't find the site I went on before which was NASA's response to these accusations but I do remember that their answers didn't convince me that we really did land on the moon. Any opinions?
Our governments have issued a fair amount of propaganda over the years, but I don't buy this theory of APFN for a minute.
Here's one site by a planetary scientist who's spent a fair amount of time rebutting APFN.
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/
I haven't seen NASAs pages on it, but I'd be surprised if they spent much time on it.
Well so far I haven't been convinced that it did happen. Explanations for certain of the reasons behind the conspiracy just haven't been strong enough for me to change my mind. Of course I hope the government hasn't been lying about this but I just don't know.
well, the reason the flag was rippling was because the flag started moving obviously as it was being put in the ground, causing a ripple- and there's no atmosphere on the moon- so the flag carried on rippling. that conspiracy should be ruled out atleast!
I think its true what you say but there is something to add on. If you get a flag and make it stand still it looks all folded and down, but on the moon, the flag is straight up and thats how it should be. On the moon there is no gravity like on Earth, on Earth the flag would look like its down because of the gravity is pushing it down. On the moon the gravity lets it go up. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, its hard to explain it whith actually showing you with the flag.
Trust me.... we landed on the moon. That site is the biggest load of crap I've ever seen. Here is a site designed to refute all of those bogus claims. I've only taken a few physics classes but I still apparently know more than some of those people. The site debunks every single one of the false claims on your website, and more claimed in several books... I suggest you read the whole thing. The lighting on the moon is very different from what we see here on earth for two reasons: one is that there is no atmosphere to soften and spread out light on the moon, and also the "dust" on the surface of the moon is very reflective, as I'm sure you've noticed on occasion at night. At the time of the lunar landing, the angle on the sun was such that every square foot of surface was producing about the same amount of light as a 35 watt lightbulb.
The fluttering of the flag is explained very well in that site:
"This I find to be one of the more ridiculous observations. It is readily apparent that all the video showing a fluttering flag is one in which an astronaut is grasping the flagpole. He is obviously twisting or jostling the pole, which is making the flag move. In fact, in some video the motion of the flag is unlike anything we would see on Earth. In an atmosphere the motion of the flag would quickly dampen out due to air resistance. In some of the Apollo video we see the twisting motion of the pole resulting in a violent flapping motion in the flag with little dampening effect.
I've heard many hoax advocates claim that some of the Apollo photos show a fluttering flag. (How one can see a flag flutter in a still photograph is a mystery to me!) I can only guess that ripples and wrinkles in the flags are being perceived as wave motion. The flags where attached vertically at the pole and horizontally from a rod across the top. On some flights the astronauts did not fully extend the horizontal rod, so the flags had ripples in them. There is much video footage in which these rippled flags can be seen and, in all cases, they are motionless."
1. As is NASA could not possibly make an insulated camera. Vacuums don't conduct heat so any insulated object is going to remain at about a constant temperature for a very long time. Plus the camera is constantly going in and out of shade.
2. "Who took the picture of Armstrong stepping first onto the moon?" As if it is impossible to mount a camera on a pole and switch it on from inside, seriously, a 3 year old could figure that out... idiot
3. Do you even realize wht you are suggesting about the hatc? You are suggesting that the most briliant institution in human history can't figure out how big to make a door. Look at this picture. http://www.visitingdc.com/images/lunar-lander-picture.jpg does that look like the door's too small to you?
4. As for armstrong crashing the simulator. Of course he's going to crash the simulator.
1. it was durring TRAINING.
2. There's wind and air on earth that can mess shit up.
3. Earth's gravity is 6 times stronger which means one 2.5th the reaction time. and
4. He landed it plenty of other times flawlessly, its not like he crashed it everytime.
1. As is NASA could not possibly make an insulated camera. Vacuums don't conduct heat so any insulated object is going to remain at about a constant temperature for a very long time. Plus the camera is constantly going in and out of shade.
2. "Who took the picture of Armstrong stepping first onto the moon?" As if it is impossible to mount a camera on a pole and switch it on from inside, seriously, a 3 year old could figure that out... idiot
3. Do you even realize wht you are suggesting about the hatc? You are suggesting that the most briliant institution in human history can't figure out how big to make a door. Look at this picture. http://www.visitingdc.com/images/lunar-lander-picture.jpg does that look like the door's too small to you?
4. As for armstrong crashing the simulator. Of course he's going to crash the simulator.
1. it was durring TRAINING.
2. There's wind and air on earth that can mess shit up.
3. Earth's gravity is 6 times stronger which means one 2.5th the reaction time. and
4. He landed it plenty of other times flawlessly, its not like he crashed it everytime.
1. As is NASA could not possibly make an insulated camera. Vacuums don't conduct heat so any insulated object is going to remain at about a constant temperature for a very long time. Plus the camera is constantly going in and out of shade.
2. "Who took the picture of Armstrong stepping first onto the moon?" As if it is impossible to mount a camera on a pole and switch it on from inside, seriously, a 3 year old could figure that out... idiot
3. Do you even realize wht you are suggesting about the hatc? You are suggesting that the most briliant institution in human history can't figure out how big to make a door. Look at this picture. http://www.visitingdc.com/images/lunar-lander-picture.jpg does that look like the door's too small to you?
4. As for armstrong crashing the simulator. Of course he's going to crash the simulator.
1. it was durring TRAINING.
2. There's wind and air on earth that can mess shit up.
3. Earth's gravity is 6 times stronger which means one 2.5th the reaction time. and
4. He landed it plenty of other times flawlessly, its not like he crashed it everytime.
1. As is NASA could not possibly make an insulated camera. Vacuums don't conduct heat so any insulated object is going to remain at about a constant temperature for a very long time. Plus the camera is constantly going in and out of shade.
2. "Who took the picture of Armstrong stepping first onto the moon?" As if it is impossible to mount a camera on a pole and switch it on from inside, seriously, a 3 year old could figure that out... idiot
3. Do you even realize wht you are suggesting about the hatc? You are suggesting that the most briliant institution in human history can't figure out how big to make a door. Look at this picture. http://www.visitingdc.com/images/lunar-lander-picture.jpg does that look like the door's too small to you?
4. As for armstrong crashing the simulator. Of course he's going to crash the simulator.
1. it was durring TRAINING.
2. There's wind and air on earth that can mess shit up.
3. Earth's gravity is 6 times stronger which means one 2.5th the reaction time. and
4. He landed it plenty of other times flawlessly, its not like he crashed it everytime.
1. As is NASA could not possibly make an insulated camera. Vacuums don't conduct heat so any insulated object is going to remain at about a constant temperature for a very long time. Plus the camera is constantly going in and out of shade.
2. "Who took the picture of Armstrong stepping first onto the moon?" As if it is impossible to mount a camera on a pole and switch it on from inside, seriously, a 3 year old could figure that out... idiot
3. Do you even realize wht you are suggesting about the hatc? You are suggesting that the most briliant institution in human history can't figure out how big to make a door. Look at this picture. http://www.visitingdc.com/images/lunar-lander-picture.jpg does that look like the door's too small to you?
4. As for armstrong crashing the simulator. Of course he's going to crash the simulator.
1. it was durring TRAINING.
2. There's wind and air on earth that can mess shit up.
3. Earth's gravity is 6 times stronger which means one 2.5th the reaction time. and
4. He landed it plenty of other times flawlessly, its not like he crashed it everytime.
Some of those points I agree with, but I'm still not positive. We learned about this conspiracy theory in my American Government and U.S. History classes and the articles we read seemed very convincing. Some of the things on that site make sense, but some just seem like something isn't right.
And there's so many reasons that the U.S. may have faked it: so they would win the space race with Russia, among other reasons. I'm still wary.
I believe that the government has lied about the JFK assassination, so maybe they're lying about the space landing too. Maybe other things that we have yet to find out. Who knows.
Well go ahead and express some of what you think is fishy. I apologize for being so adamant earlier; I think it would be interesting to hear specifically some of the things you have an issue with.
I'll get back to you tomorrow once I go find my papers from U.S. History that we discussed in class about the situation.
Be sure to ask your class about this, taken from the website I provided a link to earlier:
"
[one common complaint is that] 'The only sure way to prove the moon landings really happened is to return to the Moon and see if the Apollo hardware is there.'
Direct visual verification would certainly put an end to the issue, however there are at least three pieces of hardware on the Moon that are not in dispute. Apollos 11, 14 and 15 erected laser reflectors on the lunar surface. Laser beams are routinely fired at these reflectors through telescopes at McDonald Observatory in Texas and near Grasse in southern France. Timings of these reflected beams are used to measure the Earth-Moon distance to an accuracy of one inch. To explain the existence of these reflectors the hoax advocates have no choice but to claim they were placed on the Moon by robotic landers; a huge undertaking for which there is no supporting evidence. The simple answer: the Apollo astronauts placed them there. (more on robotic missions later)"
For an eye-opening experience, visit an astronomy laboratory and try to get an audience with one of the scientists-in-residence. They will be glad to sit down with you (in many cases) and answer your questions. Universities with astronomy programs are also a good place to explore this option.
If he didn't step on the moon, then can you explain the images that people show on tv forty or so years ago?
Yes - faked pictures and video footage that the government/NASA filmed at a secret location such as Area 51 (or 52? I don't remember which number it is). Especially considering how blurry the TV footage is, it easily could have been a fraud.
Yes...They were fake pictures taken in Nevada desert..area 51. Even in some of the photos you can see that the craters in area 51 and the craters on the moon are very similar.
I am so happy to see someone else that thinks that we never landed on the mmon as well. My dad had told me of his ideas of how this had never actually happened. I had always thought that he and I were just crazy because no one ever seemed to share our opinoin of how it didn't happen. I remember there being a show on Fox a few years ago that had several expert opinions on why it was all a conspiracy. With the pressure that JFK was facing to beat the Russians' in the Space Race (that we were very behind in and losing as a point of fact) at the time that we actually landed on the moon, it's no wonder that it has become such the conspiracy. JFK had to come up with some way to save face and hold up the promises that he had made to the American public in realtion to the space race. It is very refreshing and makes me quite happy to see other people that are not so quick to believe everything that they are socially conditioned to through either the media, society, or the government.
You're right, those are all good reasons to fake a lunar landing. They're also all very good reasons to actually undertake a lunar landing. Unlike the JFK assassination and whatever other government conspiracy theories there are out there, this one has hundreds of thousands of pages of proof to the contrary and was a well-documented event. Proponents of the hoax theory simply prey on people's limited knowledge in the area of physics and space exploration. There really isn't a single point in their argument that can't be totally and undeniably 100% debunked. If you don't believe me then I suggest you do some research. The internet isn't always the best way to research, but it is a good place to start. Figure out what the important ideas are and then go to the local library to look up some solid facts on the matter. Or, do as jarespond suggested and go actually talk with a knowledgable astro-physics professor who has time and patience. Make him think you're interested in becoming a physics professor... that always works. :)
You mean to tell me that video from that far away using technology from that time period should have been HD quality? Nevermind the atmospheric conditions of both the moon and earth or any solar effects.
1. Ok, I still have problems with all of the shadows that didn't seem to line up...even with explanations it still seems fishy.
2. http://www.braeunig.us/space/pics/photo14.jpg These 2 pictures definitely seem to be the same background. Various sites explain different reasons to answer this question. One days you can obviously tell it's a different background. The other days it is the same background because the mountains are so far away? If it did happen why would there be multiple answers to one simple question.
3. 2 video clips supposedly of different places are identical. NASA says they are the same place and it was just a mistake but I don't buy that.
4. At the time we landed on the moon it was nearly impossible to have it be daytime there.
5. So many reasons the US would have faked this so they could take the spotlight off other events and also beat Russia in the Space Race.
6. "Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos. That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon, REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That requires the taking of ONE PHOTO EVERY 50 SECONDS!)"
1. I assume you are suggesting that there was some sort of overhead light source used on the "set" here, and so it did not produce the same kind of shadows that a lightsource a very long distance away would. That is the problem with 2-dimensional representations of a 3-dimensional surface. That along with the monochromatic nature of the surface itself make it hard to see where there are small rises and slopes that affect the apparent direction of the shadows. You can see many examples of this on earth as well. Careful analysis of all of the photographs will show you that the shadows do indeed line up, if you take into account foreshortening of the shadows (due to the acute angle between the camera and the ground) and the nature of the surface itself. I have yet to see a photograph that couldn't be explained, though there are many that seem to look "funny" at first glance. I suggest you take a look at any series of outdoor photographs... especially on surfaces like sand that make it difficult to see the hills and valleys... you will have the same problems.
2. The fact that some person on the internet gave a faulty explanation shouldn't be proof that the US faked the moon-landing. Those are the same mountains in the background... clearly. However, they have different things in the foreground... clearly. That happens when you move a short distance to the side. I suggest you do a little experiment that might make things clearer... assuming you have hills or mountains nearby. Stand about a mile away from these mountains, and take a picture of your car in front of them. Now move a hundred feet to the side, and take a picture of the mountains again. Now carefully examine the photographs, with the assumption that you did not move your car inbetween the taking of the photos. You might ask yourself, where did the car go?
3. Is there a reason you don't buy this? Someone making a documentary of the moonlandings made the mistake of saying that these were taken at two different locations, when infact they were taken just seconds apart from each other. The fact that someone made an error in the making of a moon documentary shouldn't make one believe that the moonlanding never took place.
4. I don't know what you're talking about. Could you elaborate? Where did you get this information?
5. Those are also great reasons to actually land on the moon. In fact, beating Russia was the main reason we did this. Nobody claims otherwise.
6. Yep. they had to actually take their pictures in much less time than that! Is there something unbelievable about that? Of all the things that were nearly impossible about the apollo missions... all of the ingenuity and tenacity of the space pioneers, and you choose the fact that they were really quick photographers?
5. That seems pretty impossible considering they didn't only take pictures while up there. One astronaut was shown hitting a golf ball. He couldn't have been taking pictures at that time, so the pictures would have had to be taken even faster. It doesn't seem possible.
4. I didn't see this on the site but in class we talked about this. They said that in order to reach the moon before it was dark there we only would have has a tiny stretch of time to land and while we were there it should have turned into nighttime, yet the astronauts arei n light the entire time.
quoted from wikipedia.. look up "Apollo moon landing hoax accusations" to see more:
"The astronauts were well trained before the mission in the use of photographic equipment. Since there were no weather effects to contend with and the bright sunlight scenes permitted the use of small apertures with consequent large depth of field, the equipment was generally kept at a single setting for the duration of the mission. All that was required of the astronauts was to open the shutter and wind the film to take a picture. In these conditions it is possible to take two photographs a second. The camera was in a bracket mounted on the front of their spacesuit, so they looked straight ahead at what they wanted to photograph; no viewfinder was needed. Also, many of the photographs were stereoscopic pairs or sets of panoramic images, taken immediately after each other. The Apollo Image Atlas (external link below) shows that 70mm magazine S of Apollo 11 has 122 photos taken during the walk on the surface - less than one per minute. In addition, by looking at the photographs in sequence, one can see that very often several of them were taken in rapid succession."
“I didn’t see this on the site but in class we talked about this. They said that in order to reach the moon before it was dark there we only would have has a tiny stretch of time to land and while we were there it should have turned into nighttime, yet the astronauts arei n light the entire time.
A moon day is over 700 hours (29.5 days) long. The astronaughts landed in relatively high light and were never there for more than about 17 hours, the sun would have only moved about 8 degrees in the sky while they were there.
The other guy pretty decently debunks the other myths, I'm going to debunk your pictures myth.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11082.jpg
and
http://lidealiste.free.fr/1ernumero.jpg
are the photos in question.
If you examine the later, you will notice that there exists a crater to the right and slightly further back from the lunar lander.
The picture from the former photo it was taken from inside this crater.
You can clearly get a sense of proper perspective of this if you jump back and fourth between these two images. You can see that you are indeed much closer and further right (right about where that crater is) in one of the photos than the other. In the former picture the hil on the right (despite not being able to distinguish its peak) is perspectively much larger in the than the hil on the left, where in the later picture the two hills are perspectively about the same size. Once you orient yourself it doesn't look fishy at all.
Sadly I don't think we have, with our technology that is suposed to me much more advanced than that of long ago, shouldn't we have been to the moon several more times or trying to make livable biomes there?
It's still just as expensive, and just as dangerous to go to the moon today as it was when we stopped going. We actually did land on the moon several times, and the reason we stopped is because there was no more reason to go. Also, nasa was concentrating on the space shuttle project instead. There's no way to make the moon livable. No atmosphere and no water = no life.
Why are you all so into this debate? How important is this topic? It doesn't affect anyone. Let me put it this way- If we're already sending "space machines" to Mars, I think its apporpriate to say we're "conqured" the Moon. I find this all to be unimportant. Who does it effect if we really didn't land on the Moon in 69'. Ask yourselves that. The answer you'll get is ,"No one".
So you don't mind Iif our government completely staged the moon landing? They spent so much money. If it was faked, that upsets me very much that our own government would waste money on that instead of giving aid to the poor, homeless, hungry, ill, etc. I often hope that they really did land on the moon (even though I don't believe so) just so that money wasn't a total waste.
If you don't believe we went to the moon, track down Buss Aldrin and call him a liar! We went to the moon, just because your retarded teachers question it, I'd question their thinking first. What are they trying to teach you, and why. Maybe your conspiracy theories should be redirected as to why the seeds of distrust are being put into you empty heads by stupid teachers. The astronauts left behind laser ray reflectors which to this day can be detected. Get some real science into your head instead of the stupidity going in there now. Oh have you heard that the earth is really flat too.
Hi Im neil aris mateo from phil... I beleive that neil armsrong land on the moon.... Do you think that your government is that foolish that they lie to the people...specialy american...i hope that my comment is reply by Neil Armtrong personaly...Thank you...Neil Your my idol...
Yes. Do you really believe the government doesn't lie to its people?
Do you realize that if anyone had ever gone to the moon they would be able to return and build a station which is far more cost effective than building a free orbiting station? That’s really all I have to say.
What kind of knowledge base are you drawing on to make this statement. Have you had any science classes of substance at all? You are surely not one of this nations future scientists. Maybe a truck driver or fingernail technician, but nothing requireing an IQ higher than 80 to 90.
I'll admit that the government has, probably lied many times, but the moon is not one of them. There is absolutely no evidence that hasn't been absolutely debunked that says we did not land on the moon. And there is quite a lot of evidence to support that we did. Did you consider all the footage of the moon buggy kicking up extremely fine powder that rises and falls in perfect ballistic trajectories without making hanging clouds? How about the archival footage of astronaughts bouncing past the flag without the flag waving at all?
And if the Russians had any reason to believe that it was faked, they would have blabbed first and loudest.
Let me post here an extract which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the photography at least was faked, and, therefore, probably ALL of the missons:
(more info see
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm)
---------
The agency wants the world to believe that 5771 photographs were taken in 4834 minutes! IF NOTHING BUT PHOTOGRAPHY HAD BEEN DONE, such a feat is clearly impossible...made even more so by all the documented activities of the astronauts. Imagine...1.19 photos every minute that men were on the Moon –- that's one picture every 50 SECONDS!
--------------
this snippet from a more detailed article with much more evidence at
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
Moon missions = public deception to steal billions from U.S. taxpayers to feed bloated aerospace (i.e. defence) industries.
If in doubt simply apply the Law of FTM - Follow The Money. It'll always lead you to the real culprits, just like the Iraq War deception - who benefits, who ends up with all the loot? Think about it.
i do not believe that armstrong walked on the moon because the flag would not have
been waving like if there was wind hitting it because like you said there is no wind on the moon like on Earth