i agree with you..:)

[tweetywizard]

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.

PaulyD i agree with you because like you said, all the flaws and mistakes they have are crazy. Also NASA doesnt have any response to what was shown in the movie, they cant show any evidence that can prove that we landed on the move.

[Flipper]

[quote="earthycolors"]3 pieces of evidence against us actually landing on the moon are: 1. there was no blast crater when the capsule landed on the moon with massive force. 2. there were no stars in the perfectly visible space sky. 3: the american flag was waving as though there was air and wind on the moon when in reality, there is not.

Well earthycolors i think you make valid points that I too have noticed. I find it strange how there is no blast crater when the capsule landed on the moon and and how the american flag was moving. But when it comes down to seeing the stars, I don't think it is likely. I mean, stars are millions and millions of light years away. How can a simple camera capture the large gas masses. It can't. Plus I have never been to the moon and I have no idea how bright it is up there. You might want to look into that.

[tweetywizard]

[quote="Suga-Mama"] 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. [/qoute]

I agree, why cant NASA come out and explain all of the flaws in the video and set everyone strait. But until then eveyone is going to question NASA everytime they say anything about going out of space.

[gamerdude94]

When watching the video i noticed a couple of things that could have disproved the landing on the moon. The first would be the flag waiving when the astronaut planting it which seems to be a popular point among conspirists. Another big point was the last of the blast crater. Finally the lack of stars in the sky small which is a small piece to look at. I knew right away that the flag waiving was looked at wrongly. If you were ever to try and plant a flag in the ground with wires holding it up its going to shake and in space it going to keep moving because of a lack of one thing: friction. There is no extreme amount of any air on the moon thus allowing the flag to keep waiving in the vaccum of space. Another piece of "evidence" used was the blast crater. This didnt look correct because of the theory that there should be a crater on the moon where the L.E.M. shot from. However the L.E.M. only used 2000 pounds of force which is not that much and even compares to some model rockets today. Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction the L.E.M. shot off easily especially with the low gravity causing it not to leave a crater. Lastly the lack of stars in the sky can be explained because of the reflection of the moons surface. Ever notice how the moon shines almost like a flashlight in the sky? Imagine that but underneath you as you are trying to view tiny specks of light. Too much light pollution dims or otherwise blocks out the stars in the picture. I think the conspiratists make good points but if I am going to believe the government payed to fake so many moon landings I need to see substantial proof.

[20north_star12]

I must admit that typically I am annoyed with conspiracy theories due to the outrageous nature that a lot of them tend to have. This conspiracy theory is perfectly logical, and I must say that I am questioning what I trust in the name of science and my education. I do not support this theory, but do acknowledge it as probable.

One of the major issues discussed is the fact that you can hear the astronauts speaking cleary. I think this is a very good point because the engines would still have to be on for part of their journey and the loudness would cover their voices. Regardless of the closeness of the microphones to their mouths, you would still be able to hear it in the background.

Another good point that I like is the comparing of the movie Capricorn 1 and the "originial" video footage from the landing. There are many times that people have claimed to have discovered things when in fact, they have not. They're disproved because people find things on the internet or other places that show they're fakes. I think if the footages are even remotely close, which they are, then this is recognizable as a fair point in the controversy.

My most favorite aspect of this entire movie that was vicariously discussed was that the government had the most to gain from this. The United States and the Soviet Union were in the Cold War during this era. The Soviet Union already sent an unmanned mission up into space on September 13, 1959, and now the United States wanted to one up them and send a manned one. The importance of this was that whomever got into space first "won" the Cold War. With our society built on the idea that we can trust the government, of course no one questioned it (at first). They were busy being excited with everyone else in the nation, which is understandable.

I think that EVERYTHING discussed in the movie, including the experts brought in to discuss the technological aspect of it all, are very good perspectives and evidence that this hoax could most likely be plausible.

[20north_star12]

I have always been interested in astronomy and the wonders of the stars. I would like to believe that we really landed on the moon but it is really hard after I watched this video. I no longer have a reason to believe we landed on the moon as to there is no evidence. However, there is tons and tons of evidence supporting the theory that the lunar landing was a hoax. For example, it really threw me when the reporter pointed out that the American flag was moving on the moon as if there was wind on the moon, the astronaughts survived passing through the Vanalan belt radiation belt, and I also found it interesting how none of the astronaughts were willing to swear on the bible that they went to the moon. If you went to the moon then why refuse? But after watching the entire video: "Lunar Filming" and interviews, I think that nothing adds up. I feel that the excitement of landing on the moon blinded the american citizen from seeing the truth.

I don't think it's a fair assessment to completely give up on the idea that we did land on the moon. I think that we have some evidence that we have such as moon rocks and samples brought back from the moon. If we didn't land on the moon, then who's to say we've successfully landed on Mars? Yet, we have samples from Mars as well. I do agree that it is hard and that Americans could have been blinded from the excitement, as I similiarly stated in my post, but I don't think that you can use the Bible swearing against the astronauts. People in that generation were particularily faithful and may have found it conflicting with their religion.

[20north_star12]

[quote="Hollywood"] When the american flag was waving, did anybody think of SOLAR WINDS?


"The solar wind is a stream of charged particles ejected from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 10 and 100 eV. The stream of particles varies in temperature and speed over time. These particles can escape the Sun's gravity because of their high kinetic energy and the high temperature of the corona." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

If you think about this logically, then you will see where I am coming from. The particles vary in temperature, so couldn't the astronauts of been badly burned or frozen if the temperature was right? Also, the moon is 150 kilometers away so wouldn't it be possible that the winds aren't strong enough to reach the moon?

[calientelabios234]

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. The next piece of evidence was the when the Flag was waving on the "moon". Next, before they launched Apollo, Nasa had an test and he struggled with the flying device that he had to launch himself from the little pod! If he does not have control over the lunar module on earth, how can he land so gracefully on the moon?. Also, what really convinced me was that there was no blast crater on the surface on the moon. But how can that be when the surface of the moon is supposedly soft and dusty. With the slightest of wind dust blows away! The last piece of evidence that is convincing is in the "actual footage" of landing on the moon, you do not hear the engine of the rocket. If something is so loud, you should not even hear the man speaking clearly.

[earthycolors]

Three things that show the landing is fake are; the flag moving as if there is wind on the moon surface, there was no crater that the limb should of left, and the cross hairs in the photos were be hind the objects but when you look into a camera they are on top of the objects. I talked to my dad bout this theory and he said it was all real and said that its just a theory not a fact that they didn't land on the moon. I really want to get more into this theory. I think a lot like this all the time. I am shocked there isn't a theory about us going to mars or not.

I agree. This video really got me thinking about whether the moon landing is fake or not. Not just because flags don't wave on the moon, but because I can actually believe that the U.S. would make a lie like this. I'm starting to believe that area 51 isn't so dangerous, just a movie set they dont want anybody to know about. I showed my mom the video and now she doesn't even believe the moon landing is real anymore. For good reason, there are just too many errors.

[Crabs Magee]

I'm glad you did some research, it seems like you went pretty in depth with it. I really liked the explanation you found for no stars being sighted in any pictures, that was a new one for me to read about. Do you have any ideas about the additional sources of light? Also why we are able to see shadowed objects perfectly?

I did not do in depth research.

To answer your question: the sun was in the background, since most of the pictures were taken during the early morning.

I have always been interested in astronomy and the wonders of the stars. I would like to believe that we really landed on the moon but it is really hard after I watched this video. I no longer have a reason to believe we landed on the moon as to there is no evidence. However, there is tons and tons of evidence supporting the theory that the lunar landing was a hoax. For example, it really threw me when the reporter pointed out that the American flag was moving on the moon as if there was wind on the moon, the astronaughts survived passing through the Vanalan belt radiation belt, and I also found it interesting how none of the astronaughts were willing to swear on the bible that they went to the moon. If you went to the moon then why refuse? But after watching the entire video: "Lunar Filming" and interviews, I think that nothing adds up. I feel that the excitement of landing on the moon blinded the american citizen from seeing the truth.

The astronauts did not spend enough time in the Van Allen belt to take any significant damage from it.

[earthycolors]

I have always been interested in astronomy and the wonders of the stars. I would like to believe that we really landed on the moon but it is really hard after I watched this video. I no longer have a reason to believe we landed on the moon as to there is no evidence. However, there is tons and tons of evidence supporting the theory that the lunar landing was a hoax. For example, it really threw me when the reporter pointed out that the American flag was moving on the moon as if there was wind on the moon, the astronaughts survived passing through the Vanalan belt radiation belt, and I also found it interesting how none of the astronaughts were willing to swear on the bible that they went to the moon. If you went to the moon then why refuse? But after watching the entire video: "Lunar Filming" and interviews, I think that nothing adds up. I feel that the excitement of landing on the moon blinded the american citizen from seeing the truth.

I think the same way now. All my life I thought the U.S. landed on the moon before but now, with all these mistakes and errors, I don't really believe it at all anymore. It's sad actually, that the space race was so important to us that we were willing to lie to the world for 60 years. But Japan is making a satellite that will be able to see the surface of the moon. If there are no lunar flags or sites, then the "theory" that we have been believing would all be true. And I will lose my faith in the U.S.. Even the fact that there was no blast crater under the rocket-powered ship swayed me.

[snookieluvs2tan]

I really enjoyed the documentary, and I think it was very informative, and a really good example of investigative journalism. I laughed a few times, including the part where the flag was blowing joyously on the "moon." I have a few reasons why there are reasons to believe that landing on the Moon was a complete hoax.
* Shadows.
The documentary showed how the shadows of the astronauts were cast from West to East, instead of East to West. I find it unbelievable that the astronaut was not shown dark on the picture while descending the module's ladder. Also, it was brought to attention that there were no stars present in space in the photographs. I don't know, but I've been to the backwoods of Mississippi and seen stars galore.
* Location.
The location of the "landing" seemed a little skeptical to me. First off, the documentary stated that the area where skeptics believe the landing happened is called Area 51. If memory serves me right, Isn't Area 51 the same location where the government dropped the test atomic bomb during World War II? Maybe that's the reason why the government decided to possibly use it again. Plus, the military reagrds the area as top-secret, and they conveniently have the lunar capsule that killed three astronauts locked away to never be investigated.
* The Elements.
The most important things that stuck out to me were the elements that surrounded the whole event. For one, like I said before, there were no stars in the atmospehere. Honestly, NASA could not have covered that up. There are billions of stars, and there should have been more lighting. Which brings me to another point. If Earth is the third planet from the Sun, wouldn't there have been more lighting? I was thinking this before it was addressed in the documentary. Then there is the flag waving. It is certain that there is absolutely NO wind on the Moon, so how did that happen? I think it might be possible for it to be a hoax, but there isn't really a sure fire way to know. It's just like with anything, there are always pros and cons, reasons to believe and reasons not to believe.
There was also the question of Radiation. It was stated that the astronauts would have been ripped with radiation while traveling in space. It is known that Jupiter and its moons have copious amounts of Radiation in its atmosphere. If the astronauts really did go to the moon, when they returned, they would have lived maybe 5-10 years afterward. Last time I checked, Buzz Aldrin is still kickin'.

[snookieluvs2tan]

[quote="20north_star12"]

When the american flag was waving, did anybody think of SOLAR WINDS?


"The solar wind is a stream of charged particles ejected from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 10 and 100 eV. The stream of particles varies in temperature and speed over time. These particles can escape the Sun's gravity because of their high kinetic energy and the high temperature of the corona." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

If you think about this logically, then you will see where I am coming from. The particles vary in temperature, so couldn't the astronauts of been badly burned or frozen if the temperature was right? Also, the moon is 150 kilometers away so wouldn't it be possible that the winds aren't strong enough to reach the moon?

I agree with what you're saying. My question is: do the solar winds correllate with the solar flares that were mentioned in the documentary?

[tw33tybirdn3rd]

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. The next piece of evidence was the when the Flag was waving on the "moon". Next, before they launched Apollo, Nasa had an test and he struggled with the flying device that he had to launch himself from the little pod! If he does not have control over the lunar module on earth, how can he land so gracefully on the moon?. Also, what really convinced me was that there was no blast crater on the surface on the moon. But how can that be when the surface of the moon is supposedly soft and dusty. With the slightest of wind dust blows away! The last piece of evidence that is convincing is in the "actual footage" of landing on the moon, you do not hear the engine of the rocket. If something is so loud, you should not even hear the man speaking clearly.

you are absoultly right, there was alot of evidence against the land on the moon. There were no stars, no blast crater, and the flag was waving all the United States was doing was trying to get ahead, trying to prove they can do any thing well thier wrong because there was no possible way that they could get there i mean how would they even fly there?

[Crabs Magee]

Finally found the link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jun/21/mcdonald-observatory-space-laser-funding

There. The astronauts that went to the moon left disc shaped mirrors on the surface, which have been used to conduct tests since. Sadly, the project has since been terminated, but the mirrors remain as a testament to humanity's presence on another celestial body.

[Richiee12]

[b] 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.

I agree with you on this one. The United States is one country that always wants the credit for doing something and always wants to be the first to do it. Who knows maybe Russia landed on the Moon, and the U.S. is just taking credit for it to make us look like the better country. The United States is in it just to look better.

[Richiee12]

-The video pointed out more than a couple things that makes people think we did not land on the moon. One that really stuck out and made me wonder even more, was the lighting of the images. Like mentioned in the video a lot of bright light was shown throughout every angle of all the pictures. From where the sun was located the shadows did not match up with how the atronauts were positioned.

That was one of my main reasons why I don't believe we really landed on the moon. That and the fact that the flag was blowing in the wind. So this had to be staged or done in a studio somewhere with light, you would think the pictures would be darker or at least have a little tint to them. I mean come on, so I guess they used camera's with flash while on the Moon.

[Suga-Mama]

EDIT: The original text I quoted has since been deleted. Therefore, I will retype my message to suit the new context of the thread, in addition to cleaning it up a bit, just to make it look better.

I see a lot of people talking about three things: the blast crater, the waving of the flag, and the lack of stars in the lunar sky. Let's discuss these in order.

1. There is no blast crater for a number of reasons. The first, is, that the L.E.M had a throttle. You know, a brake. It could exert tremendous amounts of force. It could also slow down. Obviously, you wouldn't go charging into the moon at top speed. You would come in slower and slower, relying on the natural gravity of the moon to draw you in until you finally landed.

2. The flag on the moon waved when the astronaut planted it for a simple reason: Newton's Third Law. When the astronaut touched and planted the flag in the ground, the force from the movement transfered to the flag, causing waves similar to those in water. It has nothing to do with wind.

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.

Also, our atmosphere plays a huge role in allowing us to see stars. It scatters and distorts the sun's rays, which would reach us even at night (though most likely in the invisible light spectrum.) This scattering of light allows us to see stars. The moon has no such atmosphere, and the dust on the moon reflects the suns beams. Thus, even if you DID have specialized equipment, you probably couldn't take pictures of the stars anyway, maybe not even see them.

You make very valid and convincing points in your response, but didn't you think there was something abnormal about the whole thing. I mean, even the astronauts can see the stars, and space has no atmosphere. Secondly, I have taken pictures of the stars by coincident. They didn't come out very well, but I did see them, none the less. Finally, what if all of NASA was in on it. Maybe the government paid all of the people who knew about the hoax to keep them silent. They didn't have to kill them all. I see where your coming from, but I still think that the moon landing may all have been a conspiracy.

[Crabs Magee]

You make very valid and convincing points in your response, but didn't you think there was something abnormal about the whole thing. I mean, even the astronauts can see the stars, and space has no atmosphere. Secondly, I have taken pictures of the stars by coincident. They didn't come out very well, but I did see them, none the less. Finally, what if all of NASA was in on it. Maybe the government paid all of the people who knew about the hoax to keep them silent. They didn't have to kill them all. I see where your coming from, but I still think that the moon landing may all have been a conspiracy.

No, I don't find anything strange about the lunar landing.

Go look up pictures of a spacewalk. You will see no stars. You cannot see any stars in space, save for the sun.

As for taking pictures of the stars, you may have used a higher-quality digital camera. These didn't exist back at the time of the lunar landing.

Now, you can sit and argue all day that people could be keeping quiet. It is impossible to prove that things like that did not occur, as they do not leave definite proof. However, just as there is no way to disprove these claims, there is no way to prove them either.

Everything that comes up in this video can be explained away by scientific reasoning.

[Flipper]

[quote="tweetywizard"] [b] 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.

Tweetywizard, that part really made me wonder. I completely agree when you say they had sufficient amounts of evidence to support their claim. It is a very serious and offensive accusation but there was plenty of good evidence to point out that the moon landing was a hoax. Especially the waving of the flag.

[Communistkid]

While the video did point out many inconsistencies in the moon landing photos and footage i have a major flaw in the theory where they could have kept Apollo in the sky. During the time of the moon landings, as the video stated, we were in a huge war with the USSR. The typical thought of a Russian from an American man or women would have been words i can't even post here (and vice versa). My point being, don't you think the Russians would have, i don't know, LOOKED AROUND up there? Yes there was some kind of movement in the flag but, like someone said before me Newton's 3rd law is king in space due to the lack of strong gravity. Also the radiation point is just null as people assume we send people into space with cardigans and jeans. No. They were high tech (at the time) suits that were constructed by scientists.
There is no evidence to support the conspiracy theory. We landed on the moon and things aren't as easy to film and photograph there.

[Crabs Magee]

like someone said before me Newton's 3rd law is king in space due to the lack of strong gravity...

No.

[Suga-Mama]

The movie gave a lot of convincing evidence to back up the consiracy theory. Some really made me question what I thought I knew about our scientific achievement of landing on the moon. One piece of evidence was that the American flag that was taken on the mission was seen waving when it is known that there is no air on the moon. Another piece of evidence is that there is a lack of engine noise. We should not be able to hear the astronauts talking over the engine, and yet, we do. The engine of the space craft is barely even heard. The last thing that made people believe that the lunar landing was a hoax were the pictures taken while on the mission. If the sun is the only light source on the moon, then we should not see very many details in photos where the objects are not facing it. I do think that the evidence is suffiecient to support a conspiracy. I just think that if people could really find the answer somebody would be able to step up and truly find out if those people who were supposedly killed for keeping quiet were actually "taken care of" or if their deaths were a coincidence.

You are right! That poses another speculation. Where was the noise in the background. We should have herd something. After all, it is a rocket engine. But, maybe the amount of sound was deminished because of the vaccum of space. The moon has no atmoshpere, so maybe sound travels different on the moon. It is all very confusing and frustrating to figure out, but I think your on to something.

[Communistkid]

like someone said before me Newton's 3rd law is king in space due to the lack of strong gravity...

No. Don't misquote me when you don't know what you are talking about.

I merely meant to bring up the fact that you mentioned newton's third law and i apologize for this but do you mean to tell me that gravity has no effect on a golf ball after a golfer hits it?

[Flipper]

You've always been interested in astronomy? I find that hard to believe, because if you had really studied astronomy you would know the moon landing wasn't faked, and would see through all the fallacies in the video.

Well crabsmagee, I can see where you are coming from but you can't tell me there is not more evidence supporting the conspiracy theory. I look at the facts, and based off of the 51 minute video I watched:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561#

I had no reason to believe otherwise. There is still more reasearch to be done but for now I can't wrap my head around the lunar landing. And for the record I said i was interested in astronomy. Never said I truely study it. Dont be the "that guy" to read in between the lines. Thanks ;o

[Sponsored content]