Was the moon landing real?

Question

I want factual evidence

Answer 1

Yes, we set up retroreflectors on the moon. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Point_Observatory_Lunar_Laser-ranging_Operation and http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm?list736830

Answer 2

Yes. The only factual evidence I can give you is the disproof of the hoax.

1. The flag did not wave.

Come ON! They rotated the flagpole. This would cause the flag to wave regardless of any atmosphere or not. And, also in the picture, it appears that there is a horizontal pole at the top that the flag hangs from.

2. The dust did not blow all around the ship.

The dust didn't blow because there is no atmosphere. No atmosphere means less air to power the rocket means less dust being blown around. There was SOME dust blown around, just to tell you...

3. The technology was insufficient.

Of course the technology was sufficient. Why else would they attempt it...

4. There were no stars in the sky in the photos.

This is rudimentary photography. The sunlight on the astronomers' white suits made the suits literally dazzling. This meant that the suits dimmed all the stars out. Or fourse, that doesn't mean that they weren't there...

5.

The USSR did not try to make the USA look like a bunch of h0x4rs. (h0x4rs = hoax makers, not to be confused with h4x0rs.)
And this during the middle of the Cold War... If it were fake, of course the USSR would exploit it...

6. They've never tried it again since.

That's because NASA is preparing to go to Mars next. No surprise there...

7. The flim would have been burned up.

The film was special. Some photo company (Kodak? I don't remember...) verified that AT WORST, the film would start softening at 200°F (or was it °C...?).

EDIT: Here's one that I forgot:

8.

There is actual equipment on the Moon that we can see with a telescope.

Answer 3

Wow, again...
It's just tragic that this question keeps coming up, and even more so when you understand that those of you who believe in a "hoax" have absolutely no understanding of either science or common sense. A few points for the "hoaxers" :

-The shadows are NOT in the wrong places. They are exactly where shadows are supposed to be given both the level of the ground and the perspective at which they were taken. A simple study in photography and/or physics will show you this.

-The hubble CANNOT, in fact, resolve images as small as the lunar buggies, nor anything else that still sits on the moon. It was designed to view galaxies thousands of light years across not to view images along the order of a few meters. And there are no Earth-based telescopes with this ability either.

-The flag did have a horizontal rod going across its top. Obviously, if this wasn't there the flag would have rested against the vertical pole. It was made of a plastic material, not cloth, which gave it its wrinkled appearance simply because it didn't extend all the way to the end of the horizontal pole. In addition, the flag was NOT waving, except when the astronauts were trying to work the pole into the lunar surface. Air or no air the end of the flag would have moved when the pole was shaken around. It's called inertia, look it up. Incidentally, for those who are so smart and KNOW it was a hoax: If the flag was waving from some sudden wind why exactly don't we see any dust flying about?

-No stars in photos...answered a thousand times. Learn and understand photography and the properties of light. Or better yet go outside on the next sunny day and take a picture of the sky and tell me how many stars are in the photo. Atmosphere or not, you can't take pictures of very faint objects when you are being washed in sunlight. It simply doesn't work.

-Radiation...This is the favorite of those who want to make themselves sound smart but have no clue what they're talking about. The Van Allen Belts can indeed be dangerous if subjected to them for extended amounts of time. The Apollo astronauts were not subjected to this.

-The cover up...The Russians, our worst enemy and space rival at the time, had every capability to track the lunar missions to the moon and back. And yet they never cried hoax. Interesting.
-During the time, NASA employed nearly 400,000 people, both under contract and in-house. Parts had to be made, engines built, plans devised, people prepared, see where I'm going? How do you keep a secret with that many people for so long? Answer, you don't.

-Okay, so you say, "well, only a handful of people knew about it..." Alrighty then, what about the thousands who actually made all the components and were told these components had to take men to the moon. Either these people say it cannot be done or they're in on the lie.
So you have two conclusions...Either you understand that 400,000 people were actually in on an impossible lie or that it was possible to send a man to the moon.

BTW, if the government was so smart and so good at creating and maintaining such an elaborate hoax how could they have made so many idiotic "mistakes" and allowed everyone to figure it out? Are we assuming that the world's best scientists are not bright enough to notice these? Please.

-These things go on and on, too numerous to discuss here. I suggest you people learn how to read and discover things for yourselves before you start believing mocked-up truths that have absolutely no basis in reality. Oh, and BTW, every one of you who says that because we haven't been back to the moon in 30 years proves that we never went...that statement borders on idiocy that I can't even fathom. I went to Florida once, saw what I needed to see and then left. I haven't been back. Does that mean I never went? And that doesn't even take into account the inherent expense and danger of going to the Moon.

It's incredibly sad when people begin taking such a monumental human achievement and start wrapping it in myth, all because their understanding of what was and what is possible is beyond their own level of thought.

I would LOVE to edit this some more. Anyone else have a some powerful "evidence" they would like refuted? Step right up

Answer 4

I can't give you evidence that it happened, because it didn't!

Everyone knows that there's a man in the moon, you can see him. And you can tell if you look closely that he's pretty grumpy. Of course, if all I had to eat was green cheese, I'd be pretty grumpy, too!

So all that stuff about moon rocks? Total baloney! The governments of all the countries are actually made up of the moon man's relatives, and they are in cahoots to keep us from stealing the green cheese.

Which is pretty silly, since you can get all the green cheese you want by leaving cheddar in the fridge for a while. But the low gravity and *extremely* thin atmosphere on the moon don't make for great brain development, and there you are.

What's REALLY strange though, is that so many ding-dongs here on Earth actually believe that rockets can leave the Earth! Duh, haven't they figured out that the surface tension is too high? I just don't understand what kids are being taught in school these days! In the good old days, we used to understand that man would never travel in space. Sheesh! And you call this progress?

Answer 5

You know, I've answered this question here so many times (the correct answer, by the way is, "yes, it was real") that I've just decided its easier to agree that NO it was not real, it was all faked, the "astronaunts" were actually actors who died mysterious deaths in the late 70's, it all took place on a sound stage on the Warner Bros. lot, those moon rocks are actually from someones front yard in Pasadena, Walter Cronkite was in on the whole thing, we secretly sent a very expensive satellite to the various "landing sites" to stomp realistic looking footrprints just in case someone came nosing around later, the billions spent on the space program actually went to the NY Yankees (who were just getting hot at the time the "Apollo program" ended -- coincidence?!), and finally those "splashdowns" were just the result of realistic looking space capsules being dropped from planes.

There you go. Now quit asking.

Answer 6

What would you accept as evidence? Physical evidence in the form of rocks whose chemical composition is different form any rocks anywhere else on Earth are in the Smithsonian.

Hundreds of hours of film. Those who ask "why haven't we been back?" - we haven't been back because people just don't care. The US attitude towards science and exploration has never been good. Everyone wants to know "what good does it do?"

Well, the entire internet and modern communications would not be possible without the technology that was developed to get us to the moon... so the fact that you are hooked to the internet which uses computer technology that came out of the space program is a proof in and of itself!

Answer 7

You mean other than the hundreds of millions of dollars that were spent, the reams of computer data, the miles of video evidence, and the word of the great men who went there?

The best evidence against any government conspiracy is the fact that government is brainless and disorganized. They've never been able to keep anything a secret (Area 51, Bay of Pigs, JFK sleeping with Marilyn Monroe, Watergate, Valerie Plame, Clinton's Project Echelon, Clinton's oral activities, Bush's wiretapping, etc.), so there's no way they could fake a moon landing and keep it a secret.

The government also had nothing to do with the assassination of JFK or the attack on the Twin Towers.

Answer 8

Yes. No matter what Fox TV airs saying otherwise, we landed on the moon. We left several things there that we can detect here on Earth. Most noticeably are the mirrors we left, so we could to laser ranging to get a very precise distance to the moon.

The Hubble Space Telescope even took a pic of the lander. Take a look.

Answer 9

Factual evidence is in the eye of the beholder. If you believe it, it is fact. However, if you believe the Moon landing never happened... well, then you are just brain dead.

Lazla... very nice sarcasm :)

Answer 10

yes.

go to nasa, in the museum the have a sample of a moonrock that you can look at (def not an earth rock!) and the landing craft is there, burns and all.

burns which wouldnt have been able to make except by a landing.