Did we ever land on the moon?

On 02-Dec-2007 Brandon 2006 said:

I watched a show on the Discover channel about this, a week ago. They brought up some very good reasons as to why the moon landing was fake. My favorites being the letter "C" on a rock and the flag waving.

On a picture from the landing, a rock is seen with a C printed on it by a marker. Supposedly studios do this with props to organize them.
picture:

The flag waving does have some arguments about the pole holding it up is aluminum and it was not strong and it swayed when it was put into the ground. I don't believe that theory as NASA of all people would be smart enough to send up people with a solid flag.

Another theory I just read about was the lighting is clearly fake. A picture where the "sun" is behind the austronaut, the front of the austronaut should be in darkness, but he is compeltely illuminated.

Another thing is that the mountains in the videos and pictures are the same for different lunar landings. The landins happened in different places, very far away from eachother, why the same mountains?

Aluminium is quite a strong metal once it has been processed, I mean planes and other vehicles are made out of the stuff so I don't belivev that the flag pole wasn't strong enough. It is also incredibly light for the amount of strength it has, and while its weight wouldn't have matter on the moon it would still have to be light for easy movement when on Earth.

As for the backgrounds the lack of atmosphere means that objects that are very far away aren't obscured, making them appear closer and clearer, so despite the different locations many of the shots will look similar, although not exactly the same.

On 03-Dec-2007 Shadow_Lord said:

I'm no expert, but I'd have to say that photo looks shopped to me.

Your point about the flag waving made little to no sense. Please explain it further.

Your point about the lighting... it's possible that the light was reflected off something, such as the lunar module.

But, all these points regardless, ask yourself this: if NASA really did fake the entire thing, and they never landed on the moon, surely they, America's leading scientists, would be far too smart to make such amateurish mistakes as you're all suggesting? It just sounds ridiculous to me.

In space there is no wind. The flag was moving, like it was in the wind in the videos. If there is no wind, there is no way the flag can be moving. NASA said that the pole they used to hold the flag was weak aluminum and was shaking from when it was put into the ground. That excuse doesn't fly though because NASA would have surely sent a strong flag pole to hold it up, not something that shook like it was from the dollar store.

Also the picture below proves that the lighting is not reflecting off a lunar module because it is behind and to the left of the auastronaut.


The explanation for the amateur mistakes is that the U.S was in a huge hurry to "land" on the moon before the Russians so they could take an upperhand in the cold war.

On 05-Dec-2007 Brandon 2006 said:

In space there is no wind. The flag was moving, like it was in the wind in the videos. If there is no wind, there is no way the flag can be moving. NASA said that the pole they used to hold the flag was weak aluminum and was shaking from when it was put into the ground. That excuse doesn't fly though because NASA would have surely sent a strong flag pole to hold it up, not something that shook like it was from the dollar store.

Also the picture below proves that the lighting is not reflecting off a lunar module because it is behind and to the left of the auastronaut.


The explanation for the amateur mistakes is that the U.S was in a huge hurry to "land" on the moon before the Russians so they could take an upperhand in the cold war.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to spot those mistakes; even if unforseen circumstances occured due to it being a live broadcast, failing to account for the camera exposure and typically amateur-ish mistakes is next to impossible - rather, unforgivable - to the nations top scientists.

The material of the flag pole is your assumption, there's absolutely nothing backing it up, and as I've explained countless times; the motion of the flag was perfectly normal according to the given conditions of the moon. Its odd to assume that the flag wouldn't flail even if somebody was holding it. It wouldn't have mattered what the flag pole was made of; NASA's statement was a fact, not an argument, the flag would have flailed despite what ever it was attached to as long as the astronauts were holding it around.

The light could have easily reflected off a hill/crater or even another astronaut; really, it's not the least obvious thing to explain. Not to mention that wasn't taken with a camera, its fairly easy to alter the picture to make it more presentable; in fact, NASA admitted to altering all the pictures released to the public to make them more visible.

Rather than borrowing from some of the weakest, most common arguments against the moon landing, you should do some research and evaluate the whole thing on your own... or maybe you should just read every post before yours? I can't imagine why you'd bring up the wind thing if you've read any of my posts discrediting the wind argument (e.g. so the landing was fake and it was shot within a studio... so how does that explain wind blowing? A fan to keep the film crew nice and chilled?)

you just dont want to expect that yous/USA might not of landed on the moon

I don't know about this, I just found this forum its awesome and very active l

i don't reckon it is a hoax ... but

to prove its not take pictures of the flag they put on there with a satilite

« Last edited by jord-t on Dec 7th 2007 »

On 06-Dec-2007 harlsta said:

you just dont want to expect that yous/USA might not of landed on the moon

Fwank's Australian. super craig and I are both English. And it's might not have, not might not of.

On 07-Dec-2007 jord-t said:

I don't know about this, I just found this forum its awesome and very active l

i don't reckon it is a hoax ... but

to prove its not take pictures of the flag they put on there with a satilite

Well if they were smart enough to fake the moon landing then surely they would be smart enough to whip up a fake picture to 'prove' it. Even if it was a real picture you would still have people claiming its fake and that would just lead to more arguements. Apprerently there are things on the moon that you can use a laser to show that its there, but as Fwank mentioned a bit back they could have just put that there with a probe or something, which come to mention it they could probably do that with a flag.

There is however the slight problem of locating the original lunar landing site; after all, the moon may not be as big as Earth, but it's still pretty massive if you're looking for a solitary flag and landing module.

On 09-Dec-2007 Bronco11 said:

I'm just going to assume that this is a joke of a topic and was started by someone out of complete boredom....

How is this a joke of a topic? There are very strong arguments that support both beliefs that we did land on the moon or not.

The moon landings were the culmination of a fraught space race between the Americans and the Russians. Both nations threw the kitchen sink at trying to get a man on the moon first. Now if the Americans were hoaxing the whole thing the Russians would have quickly latched on to the fact that none of the audio or video transmissions were actually coming from the moon. Why didn't they step forward and declare the whole thing an American sham and gloat about it for the next two decades?

On 10-Dec-2007 Bronco11 said:

The moon landings were the culmination of a fraught space race between the Americans and the Russians. Both nations threw the kitchen sink at trying to get a man on the moon first. Now if the Americans were hoaxing the whole thing the Russians would have quickly latched on to the fact that none of the audio or video transmissions were actually coming from the moon. Why didn't they step forward and declare the whole thing an American sham and gloat about it for the next two decades?

A very good point, the Russians would have been the first people to be picking over ever little discrepency of the moon landings considering there was so much at stake. However it is still possible (though I doubt it) that the Russians just might not have looked hard enough.

On 30-Oct-2007 Fwank said:

Yeah because it's common knowledge that object can only move when there is wind and shadows cannot exist on the moon...

No, back it up.

If you had common knowledge you would know that there can be shadows on the moon from manmade lights and that the flag rippled because he moved it to make a rippling motion. Because there is no gravity it's logical and has been proved that the flag would still be making that exact same rippling motion today.

On 08-Jan-2008 Dragonflii said:

If you had common knowledge you would know that there can be shadows on the moon from manmade lights and that the flag rippled because he moved it to make a rippling motion. Because there is no gravity it's logical and has been proved that the flag would still be making that exact same rippling motion today.

Which is what I've been saying in this thread the entire time; including a month a go when this debate was first initiated.

Next time, come earlier so that the good points haven't been stated already and/or to make sure that you're not just paraphrasing something that's been mentioned 10 times over within one thread... (i.e. read everything before you post)

Also, its common knowledge that my "common knowledge" statement was in fact an sarcastic statement; you can see the extent of sarcasm being demonstrated as I trailled off and requested the member to back his statement up.

Please don't do that (post before you finish reading the entire thread) EVER again.

Please.

I don't think it was staged. Why would they stage such an important part of a an achievement? Plus there wouldn't really be any point in going back as it has been discovered and such. There are many other planets with which can be explored.

Once again MenaceSG, remember to look at the date of the last post, please. Keep in mind bumping old topics is not allowed.

Topic Opened

"YOU MAY BUMP A TOPIC NO MATTER HOW OLD IF YOUR POST BRINGS UP A NEW POINT FOR DISCUSSION, ELABORATES ON ANOTHER POST, OR REFUTES ANOTHER POST."

This forum has slightly different rules Vas.

This old story? its not a hoax, it has been proven time and time again that we,maybe not the USA(cause im not saying i dont beleve that the US landed on the moon but im not saying that they did), the world as a whole has laneded on the moon.

What are people actually debating here? The first moon landing or missions to the moon in general?

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin weren't the only men to set foot on the moon. Many more did afterwards. It's impossible to think all are fake.