Was the moon landing staged, and is there feasible evidence rendering it true?

Question

There is no air on the moon and why is it that we have incredibly
powerful telescopes such as the hubble telescope that can see well past the moon but can see neither the flag nor the equipment left from the "moon landing" (shovels, land rover, etc.), or the tire impressions on the moons surface from the lunar rover.

Answer 1

Why would you need evidence for the moon landings? That is totally irrational.

It's like 50,000 people witness a murder and the defence lawyer stands up in court and says to the prosecution "what evidence do you have?"

With all these nutty conspiracy theories, they can be knocked down with pure basic logic that anyone who gives it any thought can work out.

For instance, the conspiracy theory that jet airliners were not flown into the towers by terrorists. Apart from the fact that thousands of New Yorker saw it, don't these idiot conspiracy people think why American and United Airline staff didn't stand up and say " hey, we haven't had any airliners go missing", or the air traffic controllers stand up and say "hey, no planes went off our radar".

For God's sake folks apply some thought. Hundreds of Mission controllers would have to have been duped (or paid off) for 3 years of Apollo. It is impossible that any simulation they could have filmed in the desert could fool these highly trained controllers, and for 3 years and 6 landings, looking at the data on their screens, making them believe they were monitoring moon walks when it was just a bunch of movies and false data.

If that does not convince you, then nothing will, because you would rather believe ridiculous conspiracy theories than that in 1969-72 mankind embarked on the most exciting and fantastic exploration ever.

PS - Hubble is not powerful enough to resolve down to a few meters at the distance of the moon. That is what would be required.

But why should they bother to point Hubble at the moon to satisfy really daft theories that only ignorant people believe.

PS x 2 - And do you really think about what you are saying? Everybody can see well past the moon, even without a telescope, when we look at the planets, stars and even a few naked eye galaxies. But we cannot read a newspaper from 10 meters away, can we?

What you demonstrate is the lack of thought that conspiracy lovers give to the trash that they read.

Answer 2

It is an incontrovertible scientific fact that we landed on the Moon. The conspiracy theory relies solely upon bad science and faulty common sense.

No, there isn't air on the Moon. The flag didn't wave from a breeze; it vibrated from its own momentum as the astronauts stuggled to plant it into the lunar surface. This is basic science. And no current telescope can even come close to attaining the sub-milliarcsecond resolution that would be needed to clearly resolve the landing sites. The artifacts left at the landing sites are nearly a quarter-million miles away, and yet are only several feet across.

There is a mountain of independent evidence that proves, to the highest possible standard, that we went to the Moon. Consider the following:
1) Apollo 11 left a retroreflector on the lunar surface that astronomers have detected thousands of times.
2) Independent radio telescopes, when pointed at the Moon, detected the Apollo transmissions. If there hadn't been a ship there, they wouldn't have heard anything.
3) The Moon rocks have been thoroughly analyzed by geologists, who conclude that the rocks formed billions of years ago on the Moon. They explain that there's no way for NASA to fake the rocks.
4) No scientist rejects the landings. If there was something fishy about the landings, would it not be scientists who would notice? Instead, scientists are the first to vigorously defend the landings.

This evidence is irrefutable; to reject it is to reject all modern science.

Answer 3

The moon landings were real--and there is no evidence to the contrary. Even a moment's thought about any of the so-called "evidence" the conspiracy theorists have dreamed up shows its nonsense .

As for powerful telescopes--perhaps an instrument like the Hubble could see the larger items (like the Rovers. But scientists have better things to do with expensive hardware than indulge the fantasies of conspiracy theorists.

Answer 4

Yes the moon landings really happened. If there was any reason to believe they were faked, the USSR ( our arch-nemesis in the 60's ) would have pointed it out at the time. All the communications were coming from the vicinity of the moon. There's no way the Hubble or any other telescope can pick up small objects on the moon, or even the Earth, for that matter. If you believe it was faked, here's a web site for you: http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

Answer 5

You must be from Missouri. The show-me state. No telescope is powerful enough to be able to see such small items on the lunar surface. All of the arguments for a faked Moon landing have been debunked. Such a cover up could have never been able to remain a secret for so long. It would have been far easier to just go ahead a go.

Answer 6

Then why aren't any astronauts willing to discuss this question? They would make the prime witness to such an event yet they aren't willing to assert any of the questions posed to them! Nasa has released the total number of photos taken on the moon,and it would have required that more than two photos per second took place every single second each astronaut was outside on the moons surface and that doesn't allow for the cameras running out of film and having to be refilled outside which would be impossible with that type of camera. The famous foot print indicates some one that is standing in a one gravity environment rather than a one sixth G moon surface! When are each of you nasa supporters going to admit you just want to collect your pensions and be truthful for once in your miserable lives? I am convinced that the Jack White Apollo photo studies offers the truth about what is truly going on each time. One photo shows a foot print under the lander where the engine should have destroyed what ever was there upon landing! How do you get a foot print in that location other than having it placed there before the lander was positioned after the fact? I invite others to look at Jack Whites studies of all of the supposed lunar photos!

Answer 7

The Hubble telescope is limited like all telescopes in w.hat it can see Those objects are too small and too far away from Hubble to be discerned.. Hubble was designed to pick up large distant glaaxies, not small, relatively nearby objects.There is lots of feasible evidence of the truth of the landings. The real question is what would it take to convince you

Answer 8

There is ONLY evidence to the moonlandings being absolutely real. There is NO evidence to the opposite. The Hubble space telescope was designed to see galaxies not flags or tiretracks. So it can only see really big objects. Not tiny. And sure there is no air on the moon. Which is why the astronauts had spacesuits...

Answer 9

For the hubble to see the flag on the moon (or, just the lower stage of the lander), it would need a mirror about 20 times larger than it has now.

But... really - if you're not going to trust the pictures taken *by* the astronauts who were *on* the moon.... why would you trust fuzzy, grainy photos taken by a machine that was launched by the same people....?

Can you think of something else to gripe about in the meantime?

Answer 10

I never heard that Hubble was ever used to view such a thing. Plus it is hard to believe we haven't been to the moon when you see people loading into space shuttles and launching into space.

There are some conspiracy nuts who believe we've never been to the moon at all, just more things to fabricate paranoia among the masses.