Did Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong really land on the moon?

Answer 1

Yes, but they all should've just stayed there to build an ATMOSPHERE on the moon. All they had to do was drill a shaft halfway down the center of the moon and insert a Superconducting Ring that is cryogenically sealed in liquid helium, (much like an MRI machine and there are several companies which specialize in this technology). The Superconducting Ring would range from 4 to 14 Tesla, depending on the amount of iron/nickel resident in the core. Once the Superconducting Ring is supercooled to transition into a superconducting state (kelvins), a permanent magnet is used to induce a current. This current is said to "persist" forever (persistent currents in physics). Using a magnetometer, you'd measure the magnetic field at a given point on the surface of the globe, if it's within 0.5 to 2.0 Gauss, it's a viable atmospheric bubble. Next, pump in nitrogen, oxygen and co2 and bring grass seeds and voila, an atmosphere.

NASA has discovered 169 moons in our Solar System and our Milky Way Galaxy has cannabilized smaller galaxies, for a total of 235+ planetary bodies/moons. We should be building restaurants all over the Milky Way Galaxy.

Another approach they could have used was to create/enhance the internal "Dynamo" in a globe which spins on its axis. If the globe is geologically active, it might have a light atmosphere owing to the "eddy currents" arising from the spinning of molten iron/nickel in the core. This creates the surface gravity which holds the atmosphere to a planet. To increase the surface gravity, you would have to drill a shaft halfway down the center of the globe and pour molten iron/nickel down the shaft, and add some radioactive element like polonium to keep it molten forever. Once the magnetic field strength at a point on the surface of the globe is 0.5 to 2.0 Gauss, it's a viable atmospheric bubble capable of holding down life sustaining gases like nitrogen, oxygen and CO2. Methane, from huge compost piles and animal waste would also be a good greenhouse gas to warm up the atmosphere. Bringing frozen embryos of a goat, lamb, and pig and bringing it to term using a cow as the surrogate mother is another possibility.

The space station cost $93 Billion to build over 25 years. What a waste of $, they should have spent the $ HAULING WATER to the moon and Mars. Instead they spent millions$ looking for water all over the universe. Water and carbon dioxide are the 2 main byproducts of hydrocarbon (propane, butane, gasoline, jet fuels) combustion.

Answer 2

Yes, they did, and so did several others. One person said if it was a hoax, it was a costly one. More than that: three astronauts died for it.

Observatories around the world routinely bounce laser beams off of the mirrors we left up there.

The Soviets would have loved to beat us. But they knew it was real because all the transmissions from the astronauts from the moon to earth could be detected and located. They quit their efforts.

We stopped going because it was very expensive and we had achieved most of what we really set out to do.

Some tabloid style conspiracy theorists and bunko artists out for a few cheap bucks made up this NASA hoax story. They produced a slick documentary which grossly misrepresented the truth. There were even cases where they cheated or lied in order to make it look more like a hoax.

The History Channel, the Discovery Channel, and network television are also money-grubbing companies which would air anything if they thought it would get a big audience. After supermarket tabloids, they are the WORST possible sources of reliable information. They simply have no conscience. They care as much about truth and accuracy as the tobacco industry cares about your lungs.

The fall of the Roman Empire and the Human Genome Project are boring stuff to today's rap-brained, Springer-doped generation. Viewers will believe anything without even bothering to look at the easily accessible proof of this fantastic human achievement. Anything except the truth, I guess.

Answer 3

Yes. Buzz makes public appearances all the time and loves to tell people about it, but Neil does not. They should have let Buzz step out first. He would have been much better at bearing the burden (as Neil probably thinks of it) or wearing the mantle (as Buzz would probably think of it) of being the first man to set foot on the Moon.

Answer 4

Yes, and I saw it live on tv too. There is a group of people that believe it was all a hoax, but I wouldn't place too much credit on their "proof". I guess when the chinese go there again, which I really look forward too, the answer will be obvious to all. I believe we will eventually establish bases or colonies up there too, although I now wonder whether it will happen during my lifetime.

Answer 5

yes they did i also meet Harrison Schmitt the last man to walk on the moon. At his book sinning Return to the moon

Answer 6

Yes, this is a matter of historical fact, supported by thousands of images, hours of video, 800 kg. of Moon rocks, and millions of witnesses.

Answer 7

(sigh) So many people these days are simply too young to have experienced one of the most historic events of the 20th century.
And too many young people have the attitude of "if I didn't see it, then it couldn't have happened because they didn't have any technology before I was born".
God help the ignorant.

Answer 8

i saw it live on TV (i also met Buzz Aldrin once)

Answer 9

Of course

Answer 10

Positively. And a few others after them.