Was the moon landing faked?

Answer 1

Saying that we didn't go to the Moon does a great dis-service to science and to all the people who were involved. What we should be do is to celebrate the Moon missions, and be proud of the fact that we achieved the triumph of having humans walk on the surface of another world.

[Added information]

redneckchick602 listed a number of statements that have been put forward by the conspiracy theorists. She says that she’s simply listing what she has found – and presumably she’d like some answers. Well 40% of her Yahoo Answers have been chosen as best, which is a pretty good record! So here are some responses.
Most of the text below – the original statements and some of the replies – can be found at http://www.clavius.org/bibmilne.html
I’ve posted this information here so you don’t have to go and look at the website, and also because most of the replies are my own words.

Statement: The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred. The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing. There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized suits. It should have been almost impossible with the gloves on their fingers.
Reply: All of these points show a lack of knowledge of the photos and the cameras.
There were actually loads of blurred and out-of-focus pictures, plus some that weren’t well composed, but books and magazine editors aren’t interested in printing them. They only picked the ones that looked good. You can find complete rolls, including the bad shots at http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ and also http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj
The crew were able to do as well as they did because they practiced! They rehearsed under the guidance of experts for hours. They knew how to aim the camera, and on the Moon they had a wide-angle lens, so they didn’t have to be exact. They were documenting what they saw, not taking photos for a living. They had exposure guides on the top of the cameras, and people back in Houston giving advice. There is no powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon. The most radiation the astronauts were subjected to was when they went through the van Allen belts around the Earth and received a smaller dose than for a dental x-ray.
The cameras were adapted with “wings” fitted to the aperture and exposure rings so that they could be used by astronauts wearing gloves. They didn’t have to thread any film; it was in box-like cassettes that just unclipped.
All this information is readily available; much of it is in the original press releases from back in 1969 – it’s been around for nearly 40 years but these people haven’t bothered to do their research. In many cases they say that things were impossible simply because they don’t actually know it to be true, they just think that.

Statement: Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one effect could have blown the whole thing.
Reply from www.clavius.org: Not all defects are of equal magnitude. People with actual engineering experience or knowledge understand that 20,000 defects is not a shockingly high number. In fact, it's rather low for an experimental program involving lots of very complicated machinery. And not all defects refer to life-threatening problems.
What is considered "major"? Apollo 11's lunar module computer software had a bug in the descent program. Its onboard timer also failed. These would be considered serious defects by the engineers, but the astronauts were not in danger of losing life or limb.
Apollo 12 was struck by lightning during launch.
Apollo 14's docking mechanism failed to function, almost cancelling the mission. "Loss of mission" is considered a very serious failure in the aerospace industry, but it would not have jeopardized the astronauts' lives.
Apollo 16 was delayed in landing because of a failure on the command module.
To say that the operational Apollo flights were unremarkable except for Apollo 13 is misleading. At no time on the other missions were the astronauts put in serious danger by technical failure, but there were plenty of failures that engineers might call serious.

Statement: 1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.
Reply: The ball did not swerve in any direction. It followed a simple parabola. The statement about the slice was a joke, just like Shepard’s statement about it going “miles and miles and miles”!

Statement: 2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?
Reply: Ed Fendell. This also happened on Apollo 15 and 17. The camera was on the Lunar Rover which was parked some distance from the LM and controlled remotely by Mr Fendell in Mission Control. This is how the camera was able to be moved around and show both astronauts at the same time – they weren’t controlling it. Go to http://www.solarviews.com/eng/apo16.htm and search for “Fendell” for a report specifically about Apollo 16. Once again, the person who wrote this is showing a remarkable lack of knowledge about the Apollo missions.

Statement: 3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?
Reply: This is yet another display of ignorance and lack of research. There were two astronauts who landed on Apollo 11. Armstrong went down the ladder first, and was filmed by a TV camera fixed to the outside of the LM, which gave a horizontal view. Armstrong took with him a Hasselblad stills camera with 70mm colour film, and took photos of Aldrin coming out, looking up to the top of the ladder and then following him down to the surface.

Statement: 4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.
Reply: Where does this information come from. Yes, if the pressure was greater than inside a football, the suits would have puffed out, but the actual pressure was about 3.5 pounds per square inch, whereas footballs are inflated to about 13 pounds per square inch.

Statement: 5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.
Reply: No, it could not have easily been done. Even today, the Hubble Space Telescope cannot see objects less than about 200 feet across at the distance of the Moon, which is why we can’t photograph the landers with it, and we didn’t have the HST back in 1969.

Statement: 6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?
Reply: The astronaut reflected in the visor. His image is quite small, so it’s probably difficult to see the camera lens. In any case, if you have two people facing each other, and one takes a picture which apparently shows his reflection in this manner, who else could have taken it?

Statement: 7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?
Reply: The shadow may appear to be interrupted due to the uneven surface of the Moon. If the ground dipped, e.g. in a shallow crater, then it would be possible not to see the shadow at that point. Without a specific reference to a photo, it’s not easy to prove this.
The “fluttering” of the flag is a really old chestnut. There is no air or wind on the moon, which is why the flagpole was fitted with a stiffener to hold the flag out as though it was waving. The flag was made of nylon and was folded and rolled, and when it was set up it was very crinkled. The astronauts decided not to try to straighten it out as it looked more natural as it was. There are some photos taken of Aldrin by the flag taken at least a few seconds apart, yet the flag has not moved an inch. The short video clips that show it “waving around” are all taken whilst the astronauts are struggling to knock the staff into the ground and attach the upper part of the flagpole. What these people don’t show are scenes after the vibrations have settled down and the flag doesn’t make any movement whatsoever. This is true even when one of the astronauts runs close by the flag, which on Earth (i.e. in an atmosphere) would set up air currents that would make it move.

Statement: 8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?
Reply: As stated, it’s a nylon flag and is quite translucent, especially when new. This has been proven by reconstruction, and frankly many people in the USA could try this for themselves, if the flag outside their house is nylon.
Where are the stars? Well, they were taking pictures of the surface of the Moon, the astronauts, the Lunar Module, etc., all of which required short exposure times. You need much longer exposures to capture the stars.

Statement: 9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.
Reply: Why should it have made a crater? Because that’s what we have seen in science-fiction films? At the time of landing, practically all of the descent fuel had been used up, and in the lunar gravity it only weighed 2,600 lbs. To hover just before landing would have needed 2,600 lbs of thrust. This is considerably less than the 23,800 lbs of thrust from the Harrier aircraft, which does not make a crater.

Statement: Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.
Reply from www.clavius.org: At this point Ralph Rene the self-taught engineer becomes Ralph Rene the self-taught psychologist. We can postulate any number of reasons why Aldrin may have been upset at that particular time, many of which have nothing to do with his occupation as an astronaut. Rene, predisposed to interpret everything in the context of his conspiracy theory, simply makes up a reason and assumes that was Aldrin's reason.
As long as we're postulating reasons, try this one. Aldrin was very sensitive to the fact that he would be the second man on the moon. He had made a very strong case to his superiors that he should be the first. He was persistent enough to have been told bluntly that Armstrong would be the first on the moon and that he should stop lobbying for the historical honor. It's often very difficult to be forever relegated to second place. (How many U.S. vice presidents can you name?) Aldrin had deep feelings on having not been first, and we might explain this outburst in that light instead.
In recent years Aldrin has made many comfortable appearances talking about his historic mission. He has also specifically spoken out against the conspiracists. This is not consistent with someone uncomfortable at "living a lie" or not wishing to be confronted with allegations of falsification. Aldrin is very vocal about having authentically accomplished what he claimed.


I hope this has given you the information you are looking for.

Answer 2

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 3

I am not saying it was or was not real. I'm just posting what I found. This is a site claiming to be able to prove it was fake. Here's some of what it says:

The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred. The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing. There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized suits. It should have been almost impossible with the gloves on their fingers.



Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one effect could have blown the whole thing.

1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.


Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.

Answer 4

Anyone who thinks that the Russians would have kept quiet about faked moon landings should check in to the funny farm. Theer is absolutely no way they could have been faked. For a start, the technology existed to get to the moon, it didn't exist to fake it.

The landings were followed all over the world. The first TV pictures from Apollo 11 on the moon came through receiving dishes in Australia, staffed by Australians. Guess what? The dishes needed to be pointed straight at the moon to get the signals.

Those with any questions or doubts should check Phil Plait's bad Astronomy site

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

Answer 5

Some points from redneckchick602's answer can be explained, even be me. But it takes only 1 unexplainable observation to prove the moon landing was faked.

NASA had an official response, but did not really tried to explain those points, not even easy ones.

Maybe you did not noticed, but all the talk about moon landing being fake started sometime after Japan announced that will send an unmanned probe to moon. This probe will be the first one not_american able to take pictures of the landing zone.
I think they intentionally let this out, in case they are caught it will have less impact and they will turn it easier in they advantage.

Also, Bush said they will go "again" to the Moon. I guess they want to do it before japanese probe.

Answer 6

NASA installed laser reflectors on the moon, which amateur astronomers can "ping" to determine the distance between the Earth and Moon. If we never went to the moon, how did the reflectors get there?

Also, the USSR would have been aware if the NASA Apollo transmissions originated from Earth, or from a local satellite. They would have blown up the myth the week it happened, if it were faked.

Answer 7

Although there are some questions that need to be answered about the pictures taken at the moon. The landing and the walking on the moon are well know to be true.Speculation comes from ignorant people who dought if the sky is blue and rainwater is wet .Rest assured we have walked and traveled to the moon .

Answer 8

No, the moon landings were not faked.

And I find it incredibly exciting, and yet at the same time dumbfounding, that one of the earlier responders spent time posting a bunch of questions -- compiled by what must be total retards -- that can be answered with about three firing synapses and an understanding of basic physics.

If you think any of those questions are in any way compelling, you're a moron.

Answer 9

Not only were all the moon landings faked, but the moon itself is a NASA hoax. Also...the Earth is flat and Elvis is alive and well working in a donut shop in Cleveland.

Answer 10

It's funny about a month ago, my friend told me that she believe that in late 60s...moon landin' was fake because many people and she noticed that on the actual video of first moon landing have wind (flag was flutterin'...no wind in space), when a man jumped around...the rocks that go up and down again...faster than usually on the moon (moon gravity is 1/6 of earth gravity...earth gravity is 9.8 m/s/s)...so rocks shld be up and down...SLOWLY...and one thing abt photography that I wasn't sure if I understood my friend...

Well...do a research you can do it...

Oh the reason of this may be faked of moon landing is to beat Russian with compete for moon landing you knoww??

You can do your own research...lemme know...I would like link sources!

One thing for sure...after late 60s...we HAVE actual moon landin'...

Answer 11

It replaced into actual. all the meant "data" has been countered, many many cases. Faking it does not have been available with the certainty and technologies of the cases, nor might certainly one of those pretend have stood as much as everyday forensic diagnosis. Plus, the greater all of us is in touch in a hoax, the greater probable it truly is that the counsel will leak or certainly one of them will admit it outright. The sort of people mandatory to pretend a moon touchdown, that's composed of numerous launches that 1000's of people witnessed (except all of us who went right down to visual show unit them replaced right into a employed patsy-that's composed of the information media human beings) might have assured that a leak might have exceeded off someplace alongside the line.