Re: Discussion Board #1 - "Conspiracy Theory"

[Love_Muffins]

Before this video I thought that NASA really did land people on the moon, but now I'm starting to question if it could all have really been a hoax. The one piece of evidence that shock me the most was the fact that there were no stars in the lunar sky. How is that possible? As dark as it was in the sky, it is amazing that there was not one star to be seen. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but how could the astronauts survive such a trip trough all of the radiation and immese cold of space and the lunar surface, with only a "low tech" space suit and a thin aluminum moon lander. It just does not add up. And another thing, if there really is a flag on the moon, then why can't we see it with the telescopes we have now. If scientists can see the surface of the sun from earth and other planets, which are 10x farther away from us, then why can't we see the lunar suface in more detail. I can see the moon in my telescope. Where is the flag! And sense there is no atmosphere on the moon, why was the flag clearly "waving in the wind" on the video. The whole thing is just unbelievable!

Im on the same page as you. Idk what to think after looking at it. it truly UNBELIEVABLE

[whatitdochickado]

After watching this video, I honestly don't think that NASA landed man on the moon. First reason is when the astronauts were placing the flag in the moons surface it was blowing in like every direction and there isn't any wind or air known in space so how can it blow in non-existing wind?? Second reason is when Bill Kaysing was explaining when the lunar moduel landed that there should have been a blasting crater underneath it when it landed and there clearly isnt one in sight at all. Third reason is the pictures that the astronauts took were way to clear and crisp to be real. Jan Lundberg, who made those cameras said that there wasn't any kind of flash on the device and that the sun was the only light access, but when you looked at the pictures they showed, had the shadows for how they would look on Earth because the sun's light would have had the shadows parrallel with the objects. He was confused and baffled by how clear the pitures were. Final reason is that the astronauts shouldn't been able to get out of the Earth's atmosphere because of the radiation belts that surround the Earth. When they came back none of them had any sign of radiation rash or sickness. With these reasons and others from other investigators on the case, is why I don't believe that we never landed on the moon.

I really agree with you, everything I learned in like sixth grade about the moon, im seriously doubting now. like how can the flag move in OUTERSPACE. like i can understand when people say it would move if you had shaken it while puting it in the moon, but not that much. the pictures the astronaunts took way too edited, too perfect. its not perfect, and plus the actual moon would be darker. every person would be engulfed in darkness if they walked into a shadow. the moon would also cause a lot of damage to the human body, no matter if how much protection they had on. it wouldnt matter.

[whatitdochickado]

The video shows several examples of possible inconsistencies pointing toward the belief that we did not land on the moon. Below are a few listed.

1) Craters near Area 51 are similar to those found in Apollo 11 footage.
2) Crosshair overlapping: Some objects overlapped crosshairs etched into the astronaut's cameras.
3) No stars were captured in photos or video of lunar landing documents.

Again, these are just a few of the poorly reinforced claims of evidence in the video. After seeing the entire video, I thought to myself, "Wow, that must be a great way to boost your network ratings." The video was almost insulting to me, the director of the short seemed to just ever-so-conveniently leave out information that might raise skepticism on their front. Here's a complete list of "evidence" disproving man's lunar voyage, and I'm going to show just how real this all was.

1) American Flag waves on the moon's surface: As the astronaut plants the flag in the ground, he makes sure he exerts enough force to support the flag-post, but not lift him off the surface of the moon due to low gravity, this motion sent shockwaves up the flag post, into the rope and across the threading of the flag itself. If you look closer, the flag actually settles into a completely stale posture after waves dissipate.

2) Deadly radiation from the Van Allen Belt: Yes, the Van Allen belt is chock full of deadly radiation, however, the engineers calculating the trajectory of the space craft routed the astronauts to travel to the thinnest portions of radiation pockets, allowing for such thinly designed radiation shields.

3) Crosshairs being overlapped: In pictures taken by lunar cameras there are crosshairs etched into an added glass plate over the camera lens, causing some error of off center crosshairs. The pictures showing objects overlapping crosshairs are a conspiracy fed false point of evidence. If you look up the pictures shown in the video the pictures included in the film by FOX were actually blurred and edited, the crosshair does not overlap the image, it is simply a product of poor cameras and shot opportunities. Really, they're astronauts, not photographers.

4) No stars were captured in photographs: It's simple, cameras back then simply did not have high enough shutter speeds to capture an object as fine and detailed as a star, they seem rather small and dotty to us, but this is due to distance creating a slight blur from weak radiated light, also not capable of being photographed without very recent technology, or very recent zoom lenses.

5) Some photos resemble possible multiple light sources: These photos show evidence of multiple light sources simply because there were, and I'm sorry to say, they weren't stage lights, they were small lamps on the exterior and interior of the Lunar Lander. Also, the angle of shadows is not as easy to measure as shown in the video, it is a crude representation, they did not take into account object height or shape.

6) Many photographs seem to show illuminated objects under a cast shadow: These objects all have one thing in common. They are made of the highly reflective material the Apollo 11 spacesuits were constructed of, or simply, brightly colored. The moon's surface is comprised mainly of dust, a fine powder. As light from the Sun and other reflected light comes in at the moon it seems to reflect off of similarly light objects, just as white is intensified in the winter because light reflects off of snow.

7) Russian satellite pictures crater fields and hangars similar to stages in Area 51: On the base site used for the pictures in the FOX film there are hundreds of craters, no doubt one would look similar to a moon crater, except for one redeeming detail. The scale. The crater shown on the moon was taken on the descent to the moons surface, maybe a couple hundred feet above the surface, The crater on earth however was a zoom in from space. Obviously this being a science class, we can tell this is not an equal environment for testing. The hangars resembling stages is obvious. Stages have roofs that expand to make the effect of natural lighting, airplane hangars like the ones at Area 51 have opening roofs to leave room for wingspan and helicopter lift off. A small note: Atomic bomb testing in Area 51 is a public fact and well known at that, bombs were buried below the surface to create such craters.

8 ) Apollo 1 fire conspiracy and mysterious deaths: The film mentions Thomas Baron, a quality control expert, yes, that means he makes sure the working environment is hospitable. They say shortly after the Apollo 1 fire killing 3 astronauts including Gus Grissom, that Thomas Baron was compiling a 500 page report possibly uncovering a large plan to kill the skeptic Grissom. Gus Grissom was actually an enthusiast of space travel and just wanted to make the program more efficient, his comment was taken out of context in the film, "Someone is going to get killed." It was actually a stab at humor. As for Thomas Baron and his 500 page report's mysterious report? According to forensics and an accident analyzer, Baron tried to beat a train to the crossing and his car was smashed killing him and his family. The 500 page report was part of a workplace safety complaint that he had proposed a shortened version of to NASA prior to the Apollo 1 fire. All other astronauts were killed in volunteer situations testing prototype air vehicles.

9) No blast crater from the Lunar lander's rocket engine: The moon's surface is soft and delicate, comprised of a lot of powdery rock and pebbles. As the rocket engine approached the moon's gravitational field, the astronauts drained power from the rocket engine to sustain a slow and smooth landing posture and a low-impact landing, so as to maintain the condition of any fragile technologies onboard the lunar lander. The heat and impact from the engine would never create a crater, not even on earth, it's fairly preposterous. The entire spacecraft blasting off into space doesn't even leave a crater. And if you're still skeptical of this, tell me, Why would it make a crater?

The video was just very shaky, I've never trusted FOX, they say something is balanced and is clearly not. I hope this post isn't so long so as to, keep you from reading it simply because I really want everyone to know that we did land on the moon and there are mounds of evidence to prove it. Thanks to those who read, hope it was more helpful than insulting to those who believe the landing was a hoax. If I missed any conspiracy-upholding evidence just tell me and I'd be more than happy to debunk it too.

you freaking wrote a novel! haha. but you have to admit that there are some facts in the video that make it a little harder to believe that we actually did land on the moon. I have full faith that we did not. (sorry) but Kaysing is an experienced technition (er however you spell it or wanna call him.) and he knew what he was talking about. i dont think he would have lied.

[smiley11]

One thing that made people believe that man landing on the moon was that when the flag was planted, the flag waved in NO atmosphere. How could a flag wave in no wind, no atmosphere, no sort of air? One man who saw the actual video of man landing on the moon saw for himself that it couldn't have been real, despite the clarity of deep space, the stars where missing in the background. Many say the chance of making it to the Moon was virtually IMPOSSIBLE. A third reason people believed that NASA didn't land on the Moon is because, in the official NASA footage there wasn't any engine noise from the space shuttle. Complete silence in the footage caused many people to believe that this act was staged to befool the onlooking Americans.
There is enough evidence to support this theory. If a video that is 43 minutes long states reasons why people believe that we didn't land on the moon there must be enough evidence. The evidence is realistic. Wind on the moon? Thats a no. No stars or signs of being in space? That's awkward, we even see stars here from Earth. A space shuttle with no sound? Someone please tell me when did we build silent space shuttles? Do we even have silent cars? I don't think so. Hmm?

i completely agree with you! I'm also very curious about how the flag waved when they were putting it in place also. There wasn't sound when the shuttle took off which is weird because I think that there should have been when a loud blast going off when the shuttle took off. Yes, sure its really dark in space but I think that you should be able to still see the stars. I think that NASA made and edited the footage that was shown to try and fool people and make it look realistic and that they are actually are on the moon.

[Crabs Magee]

WAS you there when they did it? No. So stop puting people down for their opinion. There's not a right or wrong answer. So like i said before CHILL OUT.

First of all, it is 'Were you there?' not 'Was...'.

Secondly, there is a correct answer. We are not comparing Kantian principles to utilitarian values here; we are comparing whether or not an event occurred in the way it was portrayed. It either happened or it didn't. Refusing to acknowledge this shows not only a resistance to change, but a sort of stubbornness that does not befit an honor's student.

[gamerdude94]

I do not believe we landed on the moon. First of all the United States and the Soviet Union were in competition when it came to space. The Soviet Union were in the lead too when they launched Sputnik. America wants to be the best at everything; that is why I believe, like the other 20% of Americans, we did not land on the moon. Secondly, the evidence in the video prove that it could have been a hoax. In the video of the moon landing the former astronaut says to go to the moon and return home has less than a 1% chance of survival.

I think you make some pretty good points here but there are some things to consider. I think that after America beat the Soviet Union to the moon that the Soviets thought there was really no point in going. That being said if the landing was fake why would America fake going so many times? Secondly I noticed what you said about the former astonaut and I have to agree that he was convincing at first however as I listned to him he seemed a bit jealous that he was not selected to go. The way I think of it is like say you are on a good baseball team and the big game is coming up between another good team and you get cut from the team. A week later your team wins and you feel gipped, however the team is accused of cheating. Wouldnt you think someone in that position would do everything in their power to prove they cheated whether they did or not. Thats how I see it anyway.

[gamerdude94]

After seeing this video, it seems that landing on the moon did not actually happen. As pointed out, when the flag was put in the moons surface, the flag began to sway. What was their to cause this action, the is no atmosphere in space. This confuses me.

The point on the flag is very confusing and even had me puzzling until one night a mythbusters special about this subject was on so I recorded it and they said that space is a vacuum, thus causing no friction and allowing the flag to wave freely after shaking forces of putting it into the ground made it sway.

Here is the link if you wanted to see the mythbusters flag experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8

[earthycolors]

I can't wait till Japan makes that satellite that will be able to scan the surface of the moon. We'll see once and for all if we really did land on the moon or not. But what surprises me is the fact that NASA hasn't invented a telescope that can see the surface of the moon. The Hubble Telescope can see galaxies Hundreds of millions of miles away and NASA hasn't yet made a telescope that can see the moon. NASA can do it and has the technology, but will they do it? Why havn't they created a telescope or satellite telescope to see the surface of the moon? Mabye they're scared, scared of us seeing the surface of the moon and possibly finding nothing, no moon-landing base, no flags, nothing. Japan will soon make clear the theory to be false... or true....

[Crabs Magee]

I can't wait till Japan makes that satellite that will be able to scan the surface of the moon. We'll see once and for all if we really did land on the moon or not. But what surprises me is the fact that NASA hasn't invented a telescope that can see the surface of the moon. The Hubble Telescope can see galaxies Hundreds of millions of miles away and NASA hasn't yet made a telescope that can see the moon. NASA can do it and has the technology, but will they do it? Why havn't they created a telescope or satellite telescope to see the surface of the moon? Mabye they're scared, scared of us seeing the surface of the moon and possibly finding nothing, no moon-landing base, no flags, nothing. Japan will soon make clear the theory to be false... or true....

Uh, you can see galaxies with the naked eye. M31 can be seen from around September to January.

But yes, we can see galaxies with large telescoped like the Hubble. Not in detail, mind you, but we can see them.

But go test something. Get a spyglass or binoculars. Look at something far away. Easy to see, right? Now point them at something close. It probably gets blurry and distorted. This is what happens when you look at the moon through an extremely high powered telescope.

But to be fair, NASA does have telescopes that can map the moon. There are maps of it online. You don't hear about them much anymore, considering we've, you know, actually been there.

[Yofeetstink]

One thing that made people believe that man landing on the moon was that when the flag was planted, the flag waved in NO atmosphere. How could a flag wave in no wind, no atmosphere, no sort of air? One man who saw the actual video of man landing on the moon saw for himself that it couldn't have been real, despite the clarity of deep space, the stars where missing in the background. Many say the chance of making it to the Moon was virtually IMPOSSIBLE. A third reason people believed that NASA didn't land on the Moon is because, in the official NASA footage there wasn't any engine noise from the space shuttle. Complete silence in the footage caused many people to believe that this act was staged to befool the onlooking Americans.
There is enough evidence to support this theory. If a video that is 43 minutes long states reasons why people believe that we didn't land on the moon there must be enough evidence. The evidence is realistic. Wind on the moon? Thats a no. No stars or signs of being in space? That's awkward, we even see stars here from Earth. A space shuttle with no sound? Someone please tell me when did we build silent space shuttles? Do we even have silent cars? I don't think so. Hmm?

I totally agree with you the flag waved with no wind that did it for me after seeing that i started to question whether or not we actually landed on the moon.

[Yofeetstink]

From watching this video i truely believe that we didn't land on the moon. What really got me was when the man stated the piece of information that talked about all of the footsteps that were already on the moon. Also when he stated that the U.S. was in the space race with russia, I believe that the U.S. would make up that we landed on the moon just so that it would seem as if we were the first to do it. And when they showed the footage of them on the moon and they sped the footage up it look like they were running. Usually when someone speeds footage up it will look funny, but in this footage it look very much normal. And yes, i believe that they had sufficent evidence to support their claim. Like the evidence about the flag. If there is no air on the moon why would the flag be waving??...You can't say that the wind was blowing, because then you would look like a fool. I'm so amazed by what i have seen on that video.
Signed,
00

I agree because the us is very competitive and when russia was also trying to to be the first to land on the moon the us could have just made it up to give more credit to us.

[earthycolors]

I can't wait till Japan makes that satellite that will be able to scan the surface of the moon. We'll see once and for all if we really did land on the moon or not. But what surprises me is the fact that NASA hasn't invented a telescope that can see the surface of the moon. The Hubble Telescope can see galaxies Hundreds of millions of miles away and NASA hasn't yet made a telescope that can see the moon. NASA can do it and has the technology, but will they do it? Why havn't they created a telescope or satellite telescope to see the surface of the moon? Mabye they're scared, scared of us seeing the surface of the moon and possibly finding nothing, no moon-landing base, no flags, nothing. Japan will soon make clear the theory to be false... or true....

Uh, you can see galaxies with the naked eye. M31 can be seen from around September to January.

But yes, we can see galaxies with large telescoped like the Hubble. Not in detail, mind you, but we can see them.

But go test something. Get a spyglass or binoculars. Look at something far away. Easy to see, right? Now point them at something close. It probably gets blurry and distorted. This is what happens when you look at the moon through an extremely high powered telescope.

But to be fair, NASA does have telescopes that can map the moon. There are maps of it online. You don't hear about them much anymore, considering we've, you know, actually been there.

I am aware that a very high powered telescope will make the moon look blurry for the reason of being too powerful, but what I'm saying is why hasn't NASA provided pictures of the detailed surface of the moon where the moon base is and the American flag, let the common man see for himself, excluding the pictures that were taken 50 years ago.

NASA should re-evaluate the entire mission, show up-to-date pictures of the moon base. And prove false this theory or face criticism for years to come. Why has't NASA been to the moon in nearly 40 years, collecting more rocks to study, trying to find water. They've done it once, they can do it again... unless they never did it. Studying the moon from hundreds of miles away from a telescope wont do much good for much longer.

They'll need to go again eventually. The curiousity of mankind has always led us before, why hold back now?

[krazedxasylum]

[quote="Crabs Magee"]



3. Go outside at night. Take out a normal camera. Try to take a picture of the stars. Or rather, let me save you the trouble by telling you this: it won't work. You need highly specialized equipment to capture pictures of the heavens, equipment the astronauts did not bring because, well, they weren't looking for stars.

I find it funny that you juust mentioned tht because i put on why i dont belive is because the stars could not be seen in the video. And yes, i did try to take a picture of the stars and it did not work.

[krazedxasylum]

[quote="Richiee12"] Many say the chance of making it to the Moon was virtually IMPOSSIBLE.

You say that some say going to the moon is virtually impossible, but do you believe that as well. Becaues i have done some outside research and it seems that there is a possibility that alot of the evidence is just theoretical, not factual.

[iluvowls]

I do not believe we landed on the moon. First of all the United States and the Soviet Union were in competition when it came to space. The Soviet Union were in the lead too when they launched Sputnik. America wants to be the best at everything; that is why I believe, like the other 20% of Americans, we did not land on the moon. Secondly, the evidence in the video prove that it could have been a hoax. In the video of the moon landing the former astronaut says to go to the moon and return home has less than a 1% chance of survival.

I agree that America wants to be best at everything. However, the fact that that the Cold War was going on is not good enough evidence that America just lied about the whole thing. Also, when you mentioned that there is only a 1% chance of survival when arriving home from the moon, there could be no proof of that unless someone did go to the moon.

[iluvowls]

There are just too many errors and flaws in the videos.

I agree that there are a lot of things pointed out in the video that make the lunar landing seem false. However, i also think that some of the things pointed out were things that people saw, and worked really hard to make them seem like evidence of a hoax. For example, the low quality of filming was probably just a result of 60's filming. I highly doubt that there would be such little things filmed that the government would want to hide by using static.

[londylou]

From watching this video i truely believe that we didn't land on the moon. What really got me was when the man stated the piece of information that talked about all of the footsteps that were already on the moon. Also when he stated that the U.S. was in the space race with russia, I believe that the U.S. would make up that we landed on the moon just so that it would seem as if we were the first to do it. And when they showed the footage of them on the moon and they sped the footage up it look like they were running. Usually when someone speeds footage up it will look funny, but in this footage it look very much normal. And yes, i believe that they had sufficent evidence to support their claim. Like the evidence about the flag. If there is no air on the moon why would the flag be waving??...You can't say that the wind was blowing, because then you would look like a fool. I'm so amazed by what i have seen on that video.
Signed,
00

tweetywizard, I totally agree with everything you just said. I would not be suprised to find out that the United States' secretive government would plan this elaborate hoax just to be the "first" to land on the moon. Also, I agree with you on the sped up footage. I made that a point in my reply also. The footage looked completely normal. And high five on the second to last sentance. It made me lol

[londylou]

Before this video I thought that NASA really did land people on the moon, but now I'm starting to question if it could all have really been a hoax. The one piece of evidence that shock me the most was the fact that there were no stars in the lunar sky. How is that possible? As dark as it was in the sky, it is amazing that there was not one star to be seen. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but how could the astronauts survive such a trip trough all of the radiation and immese cold of space and the lunar surface, with only a "low tech" space suit and a thin aluminum moon lander. It just does not add up. And another thing, if there really is a flag on the moon, then why can't we see it with the telescopes we have now. If scientists can see the surface of the sun from earth and other planets, which are 10x farther away from us, then why can't we see the lunar suface in more detail. I can see the moon in my telescope. Where is the flag! And sense there is no atmosphere on the moon, why was the flag clearly "waving in the wind" on the video. The whole thing is just unbelievable!

YES YES YES!!!! Omg thank you!! I was looking through the other posts and not many people said anything about the trip through the intense radiation. And also, the space suit thing. It was extrememly thin to have been able to withstand the cold temperatures AND the radiation of outerspace. How can that suit completely protect them from a radiation belt when we need a WHOLE LEAD COVER while at the dentist. What the heck? High five for your awesomeness =) This is your bus buddy by the way.

[Crabs Magee]

I am aware that a very high powered telescope will make the moon look blurry for the reason of being too powerful, but what I'm saying is why hasn't NASA provided pictures of the detailed surface of the moon where the moon base is and the American flag, let the common man see for himself, excluding the pictures that were taken 50 years ago.

NASA should re-evaluate the entire mission, show up-to-date pictures of the moon base. And prove false this theory or face criticism for years to come. Why has't NASA been to the moon in nearly 40 years, collecting more rocks to study, trying to find water. They've done it once, they can do it again... unless they never did it. Studying the moon from hundreds of miles away from a telescope wont do much good for much longer.

They'll need to go again eventually. The curiousity of mankind has always led us before, why hold back now?

There is no base on the moon.

[FounderofGFFandBabycat]

One thing that made people believe that man landing on the moon was that when the flag was planted, the flag waved in NO atmosphere. How could a flag wave in no wind, no atmosphere, no sort of air? One man who saw the actual video of man landing on the moon saw for himself that it couldn't have been real, despite the clarity of deep space, the stars where missing in the background. Many say the chance of making it to the Moon was virtually IMPOSSIBLE. A third reason people believed that NASA didn't land on the Moon is because, in the official NASA footage there wasn't any engine noise from the space shuttle. Complete silence in the footage caused many people to believe that this act was staged to befool the onlooking Americans.
There is enough evidence to support this theory. If a video that is 43 minutes long states reasons why people believe that we didn't land on the moon there must be enough evidence. The evidence is realistic. Wind on the moon? Thats a no. No stars or signs of being in space? That's awkward, we even see stars here from Earth. A space shuttle with no sound? Someone please tell me when did we build silent space shuttles? Do we even have silent cars? I don't think so. Hmm?

I completely agree with you on all of your topics. I like how you made a comparison to silent cars because it really makes no sense how you would be able to hear a person in space with so much noise from the engine. Like what a total fake right.

[FounderofGFFandBabycat]

They are facts to support the conspiracy theory that we never landed on the moon and that it was nothing more than the most expensive hoax ever pulled off. But NASA left out a few mistakes that they have failed to answer too. 1) The astronauts being able to survive the radiation belt and no suffer any ill effects to the massive radiation which i find rather funny when their shuttle and spacesuits couldn't provided enough protection to even handle the soul sucking coldness of moon. 2) The flag blowing the breaze but oh wait how can there be a breaze when there is no air on the moon? The answer is there is NO AIR in space and on the moon so i dont see how NASA expects the people of the world to think that there was a breaze in space when there is no air whatsoever. 3) The complete lack of stars in the backgroud and pictures. I dont get how we can see stars from Earth but on the moon we cant see any at all.
Yes i think that there is sufficient evidence to support a conspiracy becaue there are too many flaws and mistakes to make me think that we landed on the moon.

I agree with you all the way especially with the radiation topic. This is because people claim that well it had to be real because so many people knew but you cannot refute the fact that radiation poisoning could kill you.

[earthycolors]

I am aware that a very high powered telescope will make the moon look blurry for the reason of being too powerful, but what I'm saying is why hasn't NASA provided pictures of the detailed surface of the moon where the moon base is and the American flag, let the common man see for himself, excluding the pictures that were taken 50 years ago.

NASA should re-evaluate the entire mission, show up-to-date pictures of the moon base. And prove false this theory or face criticism for years to come. Why has't NASA been to the moon in nearly 40 years, collecting more rocks to study, trying to find water. They've done it once, they can do it again... unless they never did it. Studying the moon from hundreds of miles away from a telescope wont do much good for much longer.

They'll need to go again eventually. The curiousity of mankind has always led us before, why hold back now?

There is no base on the moon.

i meant the lunar capsule they left on the moon when they left. And how could President JFK say that we will put a man on the moon by the end of the 60's decade with their technology. How did they expect to study the moon and gather all info they needed and everything was ready in only 10 years when we've been studying mars for 20 years and aren't even close to putting a man on mars yet. Then in 1969, thats when they did it. It looks suspicious to me, like in 1969, in a desperate effort, they made a hoax to put a man on the moon to not let all of America down and not let the Soviets When the Space Race, thus probably ending the cold war in their favor. They probably had to act fast to not look like they couldn't keep up with the Soviet Union and their Satellite, "Sputnik". I know that Mars is much, much farther away than the moon and there are alot more hazards, but if we put a man on the moon in 10 years, they should be able to put a man on mars in 25-30 years. Can we do it, or have we ever done it before?

[Crabs Magee]

i meant the lunar capsule they left left. And how could President JFK say that we will put a man on the moon by the end of the 60's decade with their technology. How did they expect to study the moon and gather all info they needed and everything was ready in only 10 years when we've been studying mars for 20 years and aren't even close to putting a man on mars yet. Then in 1969, thats when they did it. It looks suspicious to me, like in 1969, in a desperate effort, they made a hoax to put a man on the moon to not let all of America down and not let the Soviets When the Space Race, thus probably ending the cold war in their favor. Th
i meant the lunar capsule they left on the moon when they probably had to act fast to not look like they couldn't keep up with the Soviet Union and their Satellite, "Sputnik". I know that Mars is much, much farther away than the moon and there are alot more hazards, but if we put a man on the moon in 10 years, they should be able to put a man on mars in 25-30 years. Can we do it, or have we ever done it before?

They didn't leave a capsule either - it brought them to and from the moon.

We are working on putting a man on Mars in the next 10-50 years. However, there are two major problem with a manned spaceflight to Mars.

The first, as you mentioned, is the fact that Mars is much more hazardous. Just to land requires a lot more effort: it has much higher gravity than the moon, as well as an atmosphere. While we could probably get a man to the red planet, we would never get him back off. It takes tremendous force to lift a man off of a planetary body, and we cannot send a way to generate that force to Mars...yet.

The second, is money. It takes money to fund the research for a Martian capsule. When we were in a Space Race, a lot of our cash was being directed towards NASA. With a lot of money, you can accomplish something extremely fast. We don't have the money flowing into NASA to expect them to turn out a Mars mission anytime soon. There isn't enough interest in it, politically or publicly , for us to even give NASA more money.

Also, the technology in the sixties wasn't as archaic as some of you are thinking. We still use the same type of shuttle now that we used in the sixties, albeit we are working on more efficient designs.

[earthycolors]

i meant the lunar capsule they left left. And how could President JFK say that we will put a man on the moon by the end of the 60's decade with their technology. How did they expect to study the moon and gather all info they needed and everything was ready in only 10 years when we've been studying mars for 20 years and aren't even close to putting a man on mars yet. Then in 1969, thats when they did it. It looks suspicious to me, like in 1969, in a desperate effort, they made a hoax to put a man on the moon to not let all of America down and not let the Soviets When the Space Race, thus probably ending the cold war in their favor. Th
i meant the lunar capsule they left on the moon when they probably had to act fast to not look like they couldn't keep up with the Soviet Union and their Satellite, "Sputnik". I know that Mars is much, much farther away than the moon and there are alot more hazards, but if we put a man on the moon in 10 years, they should be able to put a man on mars in 25-30 years. Can we do it, or have we ever done it before?

They didn't leave a capsule either - it brought them to and from the moon.

We are working on putting a man on Mars in the next 10-50 years. However, there are two major problem with a manned spaceflight to Mars.

The first, as you mentioned, is the fact that Mars is much more hazardous. Just to land requires a lot more effort: it has much higher gravity than the moon, as well as an atmosphere. While we could probably get a man to the red planet, we would never get him back off. It takes tremendous force to lift a man off of a planetary body, and we cannot send a way to generate that force to Mars...yet.

The second, is money. It takes money to fund the research for a Martian capsule. When we were in a Space Race, a lot of our cash was being directed towards NASA. With a lot of money, you can accomplish something extremely fast. We don't have the money flowing into NASA to expect them to turn out a Mars mission anytime soon. There isn't enough interest in it, politically or publicly , for us to even give NASA more money.

Also, the technology in the sixties wasn't as archaic as some of you are thinking. We still use the same type of shuttle now that we used in the sixties, albeit we are working on more efficient designs.

I see why we would have problems getting a man on mars, but I must say that even with all that money, there's no way they could have, studied the moon, created the suits, studied the conditions they'd be in and trained for it (that there would take about 3 - 5 years), created the space ship (1 -2 years), created the huge base on earth with the computers and everything inside (about 4 years), and everything else. even then they had to practice landing simulations and even train with real hover crafts. There's more that I havn't listed simply because there's so much to do. Then suddenly, a perfect landing in space, perfect take off, perfect voyage in space, perfect voyage back, and perfect suits, and perfect space craft. No errors, nothing. Where did that come from? Another red flag. How could NASA endure years of trail and error, mistakes, accidents, try- agains, and failures, then suddenly, everything goes according to plan?

[LittleMissSophie]

After watching this video, I honestly don't think that NASA landed man on the moon. First reason is when the astronauts were placing the flag in the moons surface it was blowing in like every direction and there isn't any wind or air known in space so how can it blow in non-existing wind?? Second reason is when Bill Kaysing was explaining when the lunar moduel landed that there should have been a blasting crater underneath it when it landed and there clearly isnt one in sight at all. Third reason is the pictures that the astronauts took were way to clear and crisp to be real. Jan Lundberg, who made those cameras said that there wasn't any kind of flash on the device and that the sun was the only light access, but when you looked at the pictures they showed, had the shadows for how they would look on Earth because the sun's light would have had the shadows parrallel with the objects. He was confused and baffled by how clear the pitures were. Final reason is that the astronauts shouldn't been able to get out of the Earth's atmosphere because of the radiation belts that surround the Earth. When they came back none of them had any sign of radiation rash or sickness. With these reasons and others from other investigators on the case, is why I don't believe that we never landed on the moon.

I agree with you smiley11 its odd how such dark shadows make us dark here and not on the moon and its also weird that the strong cross hairs in the frame are behind objects.

i agree with smiley11 about to the flag waving..how would that be possible and they are suppose to be on the moon.Also agreeing with violinist13 and smiley11 about the cross hairs from the photos. The photos have be fakes!

[Sponsored content]