Is it true that the first walk on the moon shot in a studio?

Question

i heard that on TV

Answer 1

Conspiracy theory. You would be stupid to believe it.

Answer 2

TV stations will repeat any rot that might make people sit still long enough to watch their advertising. A few years ago, the second man on the Moon, Buzz Aldrin, then aged 72 was approached by a Bible waving ratbag who wanted Aldrin to swear on the Bible that he had been to the Moon. Instead, Aldrin punched the idiot out. Which was an appropriate response, but could have better been done with a bullwhip.

By the way, the US flag they set was not waving, it was wobbling.

Here is an alternative answer.
No, the US did not fake the Moon landings because there is no such place as the US. All the news and stories said to be coming from the USA, Mexico, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Chile and all the other places is faked up in a studio on an island off the coast of Spain, where the Spanish have been fooling the world that they sent an Italian to a place they later called America five hundred years ago.

In reality, his ships fell off the edge of the world and the poor old Spanish have been cringing in embarrassment ever since. So to save face they set up the "Projecto Indio" which has been operating all these centuries. It started with fake maps and has become more complicated with time.

People who think they came from North or South America are brainwashed with false memories implanted and the same goes for people who thought they had visited. Haven't you seen "Total Recall" starring that big bloke from Austria? This was a coded hint that the USA, the rest of North America and South America does not really exist.

Answer 3

No; the first walk on the moon was shot on the moon, or "on location" as they say in the movie business. You must have seen the Fox Network's show on the moon landings.

It is true that at about the same time as television showed Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin walking on the moon, television also showed a nun flying, a proton energy pill giving someone superpowers, and a small boat finding an uncharted island three hours (maybe 30 miles) from Honolulu, but all those programs were properly labeled as fiction, unlikeFox's odd program, which should have been labeled fiction, oir maybe fantasy, but wasn't.

Answer 4

Well, the notion that it's a fake is one of those things which seems more convincing if you know nothing about the lunar environment or photography. It's easy to convince yourself that you're clever because something doesn't look right to your untrained eye, or doesn't abide to the incorrect conclusions provided by 'common sense'. In the case of the lunar missions, it would have been easier to just go than it would have been to produce a convincing fake which fits all observed facts. See, it's not like once you shoot a rocket up into orbit, that it just disappears. People can see it, and track it, and even listen in on the mission chatter. ALL of the moon missions were observed in this fashion. People were put in that capsule, that rocket was launched, and that capsule didn't just stay in orbit. It exited on a lunar trajectory, and its telemetry was tracked all of the way to the moon by the folks who would have the most to gain by being able to say, "Shenanigans!" Then, there's the whole issue of how to keep everyone quiet, and that's not just the folks at NASA, but engineers at Rocketdyne, Northrop Grumman, and all of the other contractors who were darned certain that they were building a rocket to go to the moon, and thus did their best to build one which actually WOULD. That, of course, rather defeats the purpose of faking it. Either that, or you have to pay off ALL of these people, or threaten ALL of these people, and it's STILL going to leak out eventually (or maybe sooner, rather than later). It's by far the most unwieldy structure for a 'conspiracy' one could have ever conceived of. But, there's always going to be folks of mediocre intellect who aren't going to think about things like that when they see one of those pictures, puff themselves up, and declare, "There's no stars in that picture! Fake! Fake!" And they're not going to ponder the difference in brightness between the image at the centre of focus and the stars in the background and think, "No. Wait. It's just a fast shutter speed." They're going to convince themselves that they're just smarter than a bunch of rocket scientists.

Answer 5

OK It was not filed in a studio. It was in fact filed on the moon. We did land on the moon. There is more evidence to suggest that we did then there is that we did not.

Answer 6

No, and I wish this conspiracy theory would die because I'm sick of hearing people ask about it. Just because you believe we humans aren't good enough to have landed on the moon, doesn't mean your lack of faith in humanity should get in the way of the fact that we actually did land people on the moon.

Answer 7

This same stinkin' question shows up several times a day around here. Debunking the "conspiracy" theory gets tiresome.

Anyway, check out the sites linked below, they'll do a pretty thorough job of debunking all the conspiracy theorists' claims.

Answer 8

Nope it was certainly real. They didn't have the technology back then to build a set that could mimic the moon that perfectly. (ie. the gravity and resulting movements of the astronaut).

Answer 9

Nope!, they brought back the rock to prove it. Also, I watched it as it happened on T.V. Just goes to show you can´t believe much of what you hear on the boob tube.

Answer 10

Nope. Capricorn I was filmed after the real deal.

Answer 11

Some people believe that, I have yet to see proof of it. Not sure myself if it's true or not.