the Apollo11 landing might have been a huge conspiracy!the landing would have made a huge crater from the engine-yet it didn't make a scratch!none of the pictures showed any stars AT ALL!!!!none of the pictures would have been able to survive the radioactivity!and one of the rocks in a picture had a prop number on it!!!also the american flag was waving in the wind-one problem-there is NO wind on the moon!!!!!!!what do you think and why?!?!?!?
2007-07-13 07:53:20 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
it was just to see if any1 believed it people!
2007-07-13 09:02:41 · update #1
No--the Apollo landings were real.
I do wish the "conspiracy theorists" would stick to their own websites and quit posting crap here. A lot of young people come here for information and can get confused. Pretending these "theories are anything but fiction is cclearly not a game because of that--it is dishonest and unethical. These jerks should be ashamed of themselve s for playing their fantasy games here, don't you think?
2007-07-13 10:32:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it would have made a huge crater eh? (yeah i'm canadian shut up, lol) ever lit a fire on top of a rock? does it leave a huge crater in the rock? especially if the fire only lasts a few seconds. ok it might blow some dust off of the top of it, but it doesn't leave a huge crater.
some pics do show stars actually. but if you think a normal camera can show you stars then go outside at night and take a picture of the sky, with just an ordinary camera, then try taking a picture of a streetlight and see how many stars show up, heck even go out to the country and take a pic, how many stars show up? none, or almost none, just like on the moon, the cameras were set to take pics of the surface, not the stars.
van allen himself said that the van allen belts would not be harmful to people, they got a bit more radiation than normal, but far from a fatal amount.
a rock had a prop number on it... mhmm, it was a flaw in the picture on the negative there was no number.. also since when is the letter c a number?
no there is no wind on the moon, there was a rod in the flag though and it waved because the guy was trying to stick it into the ground when he let go it stopped waving, of course you never watched that part of the vid now did you?
sigh these conspiracy theories are so stupid why does anyone believe in them?
2007-07-13 17:48:11 · answer #2 · answered by Tim C 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The landings were real.
I wouldn't expect a crater from the rocket blast, someone just made up that idea and then used it as if it were a fact. It isn't.
None of the pictures of the space shuttle or space station in orbit around Earth show any stars either, but nobody is claiming those are fake.
The radiation was measured and was there, but not strong enough to be a danger. Statements that it is deadly are the same as the rocket blast crater thing; just made up by people who don't know and then stated as fact.
No rock in any picture has a prop number on it.
The flag only waves when the astronauts shake the pole.
2007-07-13 17:18:20 · answer #3 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Uh.. No. You are majorly wrong...
Here are the facts.
If you listened to the radio transmitions Neil and Buzz actually said, "Ok, now, We're kicking up some dust now." And if you knew anything, the dust is only a few inches thick. So there wasn't much to make a "scratch" in.
There are no stars in the photographs because, the moon is highly reflective. In order to see the stars the crew would have had to block out the entire lunar surface from the picture and then wait a few minuets so the camera could see the stars. And really they didn't have that kind of time.
The Van Allen Belt of Radioactivity is only harmful to humans and film, if they linger in it for a few weeks, they traveled through it in a matter of hours.
And the flag was NOT waving, they had to shake it and pound it into the surface to make it stand. So of course it was moving, plus it got knocked over by the rocket during seperation and lift off... Duh...
2007-07-13 16:13:19 · answer #4 · answered by Lexington 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are plenty of intelligent people answering on this site. Take note of them and stop listening to nonsense.
Think for yourself.
I'll address just one point which shows how ridiculous this nonsense is. Even the most amateur photographer knows you cannot film the stars from a brightly lit foregrounnd. To film the stars, the camera would be flooded with the ambient light, the same as your eyes.
The moon's surface is incredibly bright. If you gave it half a thought you would know that, because even from here the full moon is very bright.
If you gave it some thought you would also notice you don't see stars when they show men space walking from the space station recently.
I suppose that would mean the ISS and the shuttles are a hoax also.
Think for yourself. Read real science.
2007-07-13 15:38:54 · answer #5 · answered by nick s 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
NO company would ever spend a cent on nonsense with today's telescopes we can see the flag on the moon and don't forget when Neil Armstrong took controls of the Lem he had only 60 sec of fuel left so the engines were probably not fired a few feet above the ground it was not a conspiracy people saw the capsule return to earth Apollo 13 was on it way to the moon when it had a catastrophic emergency why would NASA do that why would NASA send people up into space to pretend to go to the moon why would they spend a cent on that it was not a conspiracy it was real and that's that
2007-07-13 15:04:46 · answer #6 · answered by Concorde 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Certainly there was motive: JFK had declared that the US would one-up the USSR by doing it. However, had it been fake, you can bet for the same reasons the Russians would have exposed the fraud. That, alone, is enough to convince me that it happened. It is not really that difficult with '60s tech, although dangerous and way-expensive. Compare it to the Manhattan project of WWII--really a slam-dunk compared to developing droppable nukes, from scratch, in the early '40s! All your objections are easily refuted.
NOT A CONSPIRACY.
2007-07-13 15:04:59 · answer #7 · answered by Ren Hoek 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
you're right one one thing, there is no wind on the moon, the flag only waved when someone shook it, and there is a metal rod in the back of the flag. further more, i dont see how they could or would want to fake the moon landings -- oh lets say -- SIX TIMES!!
point proven?? Thank you!
2007-07-13 18:22:19 · answer #8 · answered by mcdonaldcj 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Shut up. Why would the government "fake it" more than once. You could maybe maybe maybe argue once but not more than once.
The flag is waving because there is a metal rod going along its top edge. Why? Because there's no wind on the moon!
2007-07-13 14:59:34 · answer #9 · answered by Lady Geologist 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Does the human race really seem so incompetent to you that you have trouble believing we could send a few people to the nearest celestial body in the universe?
All your claims have long since been refuted.
2007-07-13 15:05:43 · answer #10 · answered by Somes J 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋