FAKE!! nil armstrong didnt land on the moon!!? do u know enything?

Question

i hd seen a documentry by channel fox-"Conspirecy Theory, Did we land on the moon." there are several strong proof against the first looner trip by human.

Answer 1

ya i have got a mail regarding this. showing all the points which are sufficient to proof that its a fake. if u want this give me ur mail id at
[e-mail]

Answer 2

The effectiveness of keeping a conspiracy intact is completely dependent on the number of people involved; the more people there are, the less likely the conspiracy will hold over time. There were literally tens of thousands of people involved in the Apollo program, and it has been over thirty years since the last lunar landing; faking the landings and keeping the people silent would have been more difficult than actually performing them.

On three of the Apollo missions, laser reflection dishes were set up which scientists use to this day to accurately calculate the distance between the Earth and the Moon. This equipment could only have been set up manually; no robotic missions could have performed these tasks.

The Clementine lunar satellite was able to take a picture of the Apollo 15 landing site, but the resolution was too low (100 meters) to be considered overwhelming evidence. The Indian space program plans to send a remote sensing spacecraft in 2007, called Chandrayaan I, which has a five meter resolution. Assuming the craft is successful, its images should provide definitive evidence that the moon landings were real.

No matter what evidence one provides, however, someone will always come up with an excuse to negate it. "The scientists are in on the conspiracy with the laser reflector experiment", or "The images from the satellite are fake", or "They set up the Apollo landing sites afterwards using robots". One has to set their own limits on when evidence becomes definitive, and then stand by that limit.

Answer 3

You're damned right we didn't land on the moon. The technology was too barbaric, that stupid landing module could never handle the job it was said to have handled, technologically speaking. Who was the man on the moon holding the camera as Neil took the "first steps". Like we would even be able to walk like that on the damned moon. Where were all the stars in the back round? No atmosphere, you know? Why the extended pole in the flag? There's no atmosphere! Worried the solar winds might blow it over? China will be the first to land on the moon scheduled for 2016. Funny when the poo hits the fan because there is no U.S. flag there. Maybe a California studio can also fake the mission to Mars! With all the special effects we have today we could make the lunar hoax look like, well, the lunar hoax. :)

Answer 4

This and the evolution "debate" will never die. It is so frustrating watching education do battle with popular "knowledge." Hearing questions like this is like being slapped in the face with a gauntlet of ignorance.

But, gauntlet thrown, gauntlet picked up.

If you care to research this matter, and I do recommend it, the first thing you have to do is find a source better than FOX. I recommend some of the following sites:

Bad Astronomy - this site deals specifically with the FOX TV show you saw and is worth a read.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Here's what NASA has to say about it:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_hoax

And let me please address the flag issue. There is no air on the moon. NASA is aware. I could go into how the flag stays horizontal, but I wouldn't want to inturrupt anyone's viewing of the latest NASCAR event. Instead, just let me ask that you put yourself in the place of a NASA scientist. You are going to land on the Moon, mostly for political reasons. You want to plant the US Flag, and you want to look like it is waving gloriously in the breeze. You know there is no breeze on the moon. How long does it take you to think of three possible solutions to this problem? My guess is you've already thought of at least one.

To see if you guess right check the bad astronomy page for the real explanation.

- Cai

Answer 5

Just dont say anything to Neil, that guy is dedicated to the lie... I also seem to remember hearing about one astronaught nearly pummeling a reporter who asked such a question.

Seriously though, politically that was a strange time and there where plenty of lies and mis-information going around. In retrospect it would have been a bloody good way to keep the USSR engaged in a fruitless space race and weaken their economic structure a little more. Like the americans who created an army of fake tanks in dunkirk to pull attention away from normandy beach in world war II.
But that is just the rub, we know that army was faked. With as many people have to be involved in so many of NASA's proccesses it is very unlikely that they would be able to keep so many people quiet about something that big, not with every newspaper in the country willing to pay out the nose for such a scandal.
Of course when you come right down to it only the guys in the capsule can really know for sure, a sharp eye and a good budget are good for making up just about anything. But really this is a funny thing to worry about. we know the government is not 100% truthful. If they did lie it is one less flag and a few footprints diffrence (not to mention some pissed off scientists).
Worry about something else, Like say Chemical and Biological warfair labroratories in the us, nuclear disarmerment or the aids vaccene. still a waste of your time, but at least something that is relevant to your life (or at least the potential for ending it)

Answer 6

The fottage was fake but they DID land on the moon because the lunar rocks contained spheroids which could only grow that ONLY if it came from The Moon.
They faked the footage because there are anomalies on The Moon and Apollo 11 landed near one. There are atrificial structures there and alien activity.
OF COURSE THEY HAD TO FAKE THE FOOTAGE.
Besides, they had to make themselves look good in front of the Soviet-era Russians.

Answer 7

Well, technically you're correct..although he got very close. There was perhaps an inch between the soles of his boots (which were on the moon's surface) and the skin of his feet.

Actually, which is easier...going to the moon....or keeping a conspiracy involving thousands upon thousands of people under wraps for 35 years (people have BIG mouths?)

Answer 8

That ridiculous Fox-TV so-called "documentary" has been totally discredited by everyone between here and Timbuktu. Here's just one website that blows out of the water each and every "proof" in that Fox-TV cartoon ==>http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

The science found at that website requires a little knowledge, so maybe you should just ignore it after all and stay on the easy road...to ignorance.

Answer 9

strong misinformation, yes...

give us the "proofs" you saw, and we'll prove they're rubish.


lol: very good ik_weet_niets. Right to the point!

PS: I find it very funny that there a so many people who can't believe we went to the moon and at the same time believe that a man walked on water 2 thousand years ago. Or even believe in astrology and paranormal activities... That kind of rubbish.

Answer 10

Not sure if they did land, but the footage is definitely fake, I mean come on! A horizontal flag on a surface with no wind? Gravity would have pulled it downwards.

Answer 11

Yes we land on moon. The NASA now a days is offering a trip to moon for $12,000,000