Did we really land on the moon in 1969?

Answer 1

1) Twelve 12 American astronauts have walked on the moon.

Apollo 11: Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin
Apollo 12: Pete Conrad & Alan Bean
Apollo 13: << failed to land on the moon >>
Apollo 14: Alan Shepard & Edgar (Ed) Mitchell
Apollo 15: David Scott & James Irwin
Apollo 16: John Young & Charles Duke
Apollo 17: Eugene (Gene) Cernan & Harrison Schmidt


2) Why haven't we been back?

a) American astronauts visited the moon on six occasions.

b) The "moon race" was an extension of the cold war. It was mostly about national prestige. We got there first and achieved our primary objective. There was some good science: surveys, measurements, sample collection. But it was mostly about being there first. Once we achieved our primary objective, there was no political will to go back. There still isn't. Perhaps, if we discover He3 or something else valuable, there will be.

c) I used to travel to Crested Butte, Colorado every year to ski. Because I don't go anymore, does it mean that I never went?


3) What about the Van Allen radiation belts? Wouldn't it have killed the astronauts?

The existence of the Van Allen radiation belts postulated in the 1940s by Nicholas Christofilos. Their existence was confirmed in *1958* by the Explorer I satellite launched by the USA.

The radiation in the Van Allen radiation belts is not particularly strong. You would have to hang out there for a week or so in order to get radiation sickness. And, because the radiation is not particularly strong, a few millimeters of metal is all that is required for protection. "An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (25 Sv) per *year*."

"In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. [6]. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation." When the astronauts returned to Earth, their dosimeters showed that they had received about as much radiation as a couple of medical X-rays.


4) The U.S. government scammed everyone?

In 1972, there was a politically motivated burglary of a hotel room in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. There were only about six or eight people who knew about it. However, those people, including Richard M. Nixon, the President of the United States, failed to keep that burglary a secret. It exploded into a scandal that drove the President and a number of others from office.

If six or eight people couldn't keep a hotel room burglary a secret, then how could literally thousands of people could have kept their mouths shut about six faked moon landings? Not just one moon landing, but six of them!


5) What about the USSR?

Even if NASA and other government agencies could have faked the six moon landings well enough to fool the general public, they could NOT have fooled the space agency or military intelligence types in the USSR. The Soviets were just dying to beat us. If the landings were faked, the Soviets would have re-engineered their N-1 booster and landed on the moon just to prove what liars Americans are. Why didn't they? Because the landings were real and the Soviets knew it.


6) Why does the flag shake? Where are the stars? Who took the video of Neil Armstrong?

Take a look at the first two websites listed below. They deal well with all of the technical questions.


7) Finally, please tell us what you would accept as definitive evidence that the six moon landings were real. Is there anything?

Answer 2

The simplest answer to your question is yes we did, but let me give you some hoax's and then the explanation for them hey. I have picked 4 big ones that are fairly typical. Its a bit long, but please stick with me :)

1) No stars in the photos:

The real reason is that when contrasted with the brightness of the astronauts and the lunar surface, the stars are just too dim to register on the photographic emulsion of the camera film. If the camera shutter were held open long enough for the stars to register, everything else would be over-exposed into a white featureless glare.

You cannot have both visible on the one photograph, so the camera was set for the correct exposure for Buzz Aldrin and the lunar surface, not the stars. When standing on the lunar surface the astronauts could not visually observe the stars in the dark sky, because of the surface glare, they could only see them when standing in shadow. By the same token, if we take a photograph outdoors at night from a brightly illuminated surface, our photograph also would not show any stars in the sky.

2) The flags waving.

The flag is out and appears to be waving by an extendable rod running through the top of the flag, so that it can be viewed unfurled, and you can see the unnatural rigidity this gives to the top of the flag in the picture. The rod creates the effect of a breeze blowing the flag into that position. Without the supporting rod the flag would just hang limply down and would not reveal the stars and stripes. The rod is not extended the full width of the flag and it looks like a breeze is causing a ripple in the flag.

It has also been claimed that some video clips show the flag waving in the breeze when it was planted. Not so. The movement of the flag is only because when astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil.

3) 'Wrong' shadows

The simple fact is that there is more than one light source. The light does not come directly from the Sun and illuminate only the one object in question, as a narrow beam spotlight would in a dark room. It shines on the entire daytime surface, just as it does here on Earth. Therefore it also illuminates the surface, the astronauts themselves, rocks, mountains, the Lander and all the other objects on the surface.

The reflections from these objects is why there is more than one light source, it is not because there was more than one spotlight used on a film set. It is also worth noting that on the lunar surface the reflected sunlight from the Earth is 68% brighter than that of the full Moon as seen from Earth.

For more on this question check out badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangod...

All the other fake photographs are explained just as easily with a little knowledge, and an understanding of how conditions on the Moon are very different to those here. With no atmosphere to scatter the light, things look a little odd on the Moon, we have a very black sky and a very bright surface.

We see strong shadows everywhere, and our sense of distance is also fooled because there is no atmosphere to produce the familiar atmospheric haze that creates a distance perspective on Earth. Furthermore, with the gravity being only a sixth of Earth's gravity, things move and behave differently as well.

It's hard to make straight comparisons, because we cannot, the Moon is just not like the Earth. We have to think differently when interpreting the images from the Moon, and that's what causes the problems, people are not allowing for those differences when looking at the lunar photographs. They are looking at them as if they were taken under normal Earth conditions, and concluding wrongly that there must be something wrong with the photographs.

4) Why doesn't the Hubble Space Telescope provide proof hey
The equipment left over by the astronauts is just too small to be seen with the HST. Even the best image we have of the moon is taken of Copernicus crater. Although it is beautifully detailed it is just impossible to make out anything on the surface.

I realise that these are just a view answers, i could keep going but everyone would complain that im taking up all the space, if they're not already :) I hope this has answered a few off your questions though. Check out this website, it answers alot more: www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

Answer 3

I really don't know whether there was a landing on the moon in 1969 or not. It is recorded in lots of text books and probably every library on the planet. But did we? Or was it all staged in a studio somewhere?

We will probably never find out. However there is talk that there will be a space station on the moon by 2025AD, which is so far away I will be almost 50 by then! My question is if they have landed on the moon before and they have so much technology to hand (not to mention resources), why the hell is it going to take them so long to build the space station?!? It's only going to be a small one with a few pre-fab buildings. Any way, when it does happen just watch out for the shadows and the special effects!

It also makes you wonder why it costs them so much to actually get up there in the first place. Where does all the money go?

Answer 4

There are no stars visible in lunar surface photographs because stars are not bright enough. The exposure for the cameras was set to correctly expose objects in full sunlight in total vacuum, which made them considerably brighter than midday on Earth. The sky was black because there was no atmosphere, but if the exposure had been set to make the stars visible there would have been no detail visible on the moon itself -- which is obviously the subject of interest in these photographs.

All of the arguments that the moon landing pictures were faked arise from people who don't understand photography, perspective, or the way a wire can hold a flag upright in a vacuum.

Answer 5

Don't know who you are but certainly someone landed on the moon in 1969.

Answer 6

Yes NASA sent Astronauts to the Moon in 1968,1969,1970,1971 and in late 1972. Neil and Buzz Adrien were the first two men to walk on the moon. They only stayed for about 3 Hrs and returned to the CM.Then 6 other men walked on the moon and the last two were on the moon in December 1972 the only Saturn V rocket to launch at night to date. So yea pretty much we went to the moon about 7 times and only one mission had a failure.

Answer 7

There´s the theory that we didn't really land the moon, or at least the first time that was seen on tv, cause U.S.A was in the middle of the cold war with Russia and that was a way to press Russia and to win in some manner, that's what they make a film to make belive they land the moon first, they are facts to belive that, because the flag on the movie is weaving ant there no air on space also its said tha this movie may be done by Stanley Kubrik because is similarto spce oddisey

Answer 8

Well, I've watched two documentories on the subject, one concluding that the Americans did not land on the moon, and saying that they did. I have to say that the latter was more convincing, but I would aslo like to say that you can never believe any thing that you see on TV or read in the paper!

Answer 9

YEP -

Do you really believe that after spending 28 billion dollars, 14 years and hiring 250,000 people to work on it, if the flag were flapping in the breeze and not on a metal rod that it would not have been caught by someone before they aired it?? I suppose the Blaire witch is still alive too.

Answer 10

Yes Neil Armstrong did