Apollo 11 Moon Landings were faked by NASA

[Sweet Tart]

Proponents of the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations allege that the Apollo Moon Landings never took place, and were faked by NASA with possible CIA support. Enthusiasts of this theory claim that:

The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation
The photos were altered: the Crosshairs on some photos appear to be behind objects, rather than in front of them where they should be
The quality of the photographs is implausibly high.
There are no stars in any of the photos, and astronauts never report seeing any stars from the capsule windows.
Identical backgrounds in photos that are listed as taken miles apart.
The moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.
No blast crater appeared from the landing
The launch rocket produced no visible flame.
The flag placed on the surface by the astronauts flapped despite there being no wind on the Moon.

http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx

[MW]

Well, we couldn't let another country beat us there . . . so why not fake it?

[Sassafras]

:rolleyes: It wouldn't surprise me!!!

[Indy]

I'm not sure what to think about this. I have heard it before and I wouldn't put it past our gov't.

[Twistix]

I have seen documentaries on this and thought that it seemed more than very plausible.

[Iggy]

It wouldn't surprise me at all. And it would explain why we haven't been back :para

[Incognito]

It wouldn't surprise me at all. And it would explain why we haven't been back :para

I haven't heard this before.

But the flag waving is a sure sign, IMO :shrug

[FunDeeMental]

I haven't heard this before.

But the flag waving is a sure sign, IMO :shrug

A sure sign of what? That it did or didn't happen?

Personally, I don't think we landed on the moon. I really believe it was faked and have thought that for a long time. My quandry now is whether or not I should tell my kids my belief or just let them learn whatever in school and draw their own conclusions. :teehee

[Kitka]

How'd I not guess that this rumor was resurrected recently (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm) by Fox News? LOL.

The best rebuttal to allegations of a "Moon Hoax," however, is common sense. Evidence that the Apollo program really happened is compelling: A dozen astronauts (laden with cameras) walked on the Moon between 1969 and 1972. Nine of them are still alive and can testify to their experience. They didn't return from the Moon empty-handed, either. Just as Columbus carried a few hundred natives back to Spain as evidence of his trip to the New World, Apollo astronauts brought 841 pounds of Moon rock home to Earth.

For it to be a hoax, every scientist that has ever studied the composition of rock would have to be in on it :roll

Here are other (http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/) sites, (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html) not related to NASA, that seeks to debunk that conspiracy theory (which I obviously don't believe...)

[Phoenix]

But.... why? Why fake it?

[Kitka]

I haven't heard this before.

But the flag waving is a sure sign, IMO :shrug

One explanation (http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Flag.htm):

This is one of the most common questions about the Apollo landings and is often used as evidence of a hoax. Fortunately there is nothing peculiar about what we can see here at all. Not if we remember this is happening on the moon.

Firstly the flag had a horizontal bar attached to it at the top. This was done so that the flag would stand out from the flagpole. NASA appreciated that there would be no wind on the moon, so any normal flag would just hang limply and unattractively down the pole. To make things look better they added a bar that stood out at 90 degrees from the pole. The flag was really hanging from this, rather than from the pole. The bar was also not quite the full width of the flag, so that it was slightly furled to give a 'wave look' to it.

The moon's surface, once you get past the thin layer of dust, is very hard. So getting the flagpole to stick in was a tough job. The footage shows the astronaut twisting the pole back and forth in order to try and get it further into the ground. This movement made the attached bar and flag flutter.

The flagpole itself was light aluminium that is quite springy. Even once the astronaut let go the pole would continue to vibrate. This in turn would shake the bar and flap the flag. Without any air to dampen this it would continue to do so for longer than you might expect.

[Kitka]

It wouldn't surprise me at all. And it would explain why we haven't been back :para

One theory: (http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Go_Back.htm)

So why has NASA never been back in the last 30 years and why haven't the Russian's been?

As the main driving force was political, once the first landings had been accomplished and the USSR soundly beaten, the government finance started to dry up. The Apollo missions were incredibly expensive and people were starting to wonder if it was worth it now we knew it was just a dry lifeless rock and that the Russians weren't in the running anymore. The USSR space program had hit a number of very explosive failures and weren't so keen to go either now. There's little glory in being second on the moon. Within a decade or so and the USSR had enough problems running the country and their nuclear reactors to even consider trips to the moon.

The military weren't so bothered either. The idea of some kind of missile base on the moon was never a consideration. By the time it took the missiles to reach Earth everything would be over anyway. What was much more practical was satellites, spy and otherwise, and any military developments could be achieved easier and cheaper in low orbit than on the moon anyway. So the military preferred the money to be spent on the Shuttles.

That just leaves scientific reasons. The scientists would love to go back to the moon as there's bound to be lots more to discover. Unfortunately the scientists aren't in charge of handing out the money. If you're American ('cos lets face it, they're the only ones who could afford it) and you want to go back to the moon, then tell your politicians that. They need convincing.

[Knight'sWife]

Does this mean the moon rock My Dad was in charge of and was in our house for 2 weeks when I was a kid was fake too????

To be honost I do not think we had the computers to do what needed to be done for these men to survive..

So maybe the rock was a fake too...

[Kitka]

Does this mean the moon rock My Dad was in charge of and was in our house for 2 weeks when I was a kid was fake too????

To be honost I do not think we had the computers to do what needed to be done for these men to survive..

So maybe the rock was a fake too...

I wouldn't assume that it was fake.

Just because the technology wasn't commonly available to the public at the time doesn't mean it wasn't part of NASA's cutting edge technology.

And I'm not sure how advanced a computer it really takes to plot a course to the moon...

[Lucian]

I was lucky enough to grow up across the street from nasa in Clear Lake and went to school with astonaut's children. After growing up with all these people I doubt it was faked. It doesn't take much to plot a course. Computer's back then were tube equivalent's to Radio Shack TRS-80's with 2k of mem. The backup computer to get from the moon was Buzz Aldrin who has a freak ability to do integral calc for 3D in his head.