Do you think man went to the moon?

"I am shocked that you guys think man walked on the moon."

So you are shocked by the truth.

That is your problem, not mine.

When Neil took "a small step for [a] man", the Moon was over the Pacific Ocean. This means that the TV signal could not be received in the USA. The signal we saw came through a radio-telescope in Australia. People in Australia saw the images 7 seconds before we did.

This also means that the TV signal was picked up on (almost) all Soviet radio-telescopes. At the time, arrays of radio-telescopes were already more precise than optical telescopes in identifying the source of a signal.

If they had had any hint that the signal was not coming from the Moon, they would have told the whole world right away. The "cover-up" would not have lasted one hour, never mind 40 years.

The (fake) documentary that shows the (fake) proofs was prepared by a guy who was convinced that the world is flat. If it is flat, you can't go in orbit. Therefore you can't reach the Moon.

When that guy died, the idea of the Moon Landing Hoax hoax (yes, you must use the word hoax twice, since his documentary was, itself, a hoax) died with him...

until recently, when it was resurrected by some groups in the US who want to shake people's confidence in science. In some cases, it is because they are creating fake religions and, in order to brainwash their kids into these new religions, they must show them that science is unreliable.

Every once in a while, one of these "creators" of fake religion pretends to ask an innocent question about the Moon Landing Hoax hoax. He is not interested in convincing us, but simply wants to plant one more seed of doubt for any other kids reading the list of questions.

If you ask the question often enough (every day for example), you will create the [false] impression that there must be something to this rumor.

Other charlatans do the same with 2012.

Yes Queen Elizabeth 2nd has been reigning since 1952 and man landed on the moon in 1969.

The ultimate proof will come soon:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message74...

The problem with the shuttle program (Challenger/Columbia) rose from it's complex, now obsolete design. It's re-usability also is somewhat responsible.

BOTH disasters were preventable. With Challenger, they knew there was a risk launching in such cold weather, but went on anyway because they had gotten away with it before. With Columbia, they knew before the disaster from launch video footage that something had come off the shuttle, but didn't bother to further investigate.

Also, the shuttle was designed for travel to and from Low Earth Orbit and space stations. There is no way it could go to the moon. Budget cuts and the sense of "been there done that" stopped the Apollo program at 17, even though there was hardware for at least three more. Instead the rockets today are on display in The Cape, Huntsville, AL, and Houston TX.

The Saturn V Rocket used is still today much more powerful then anything else ever launched. It had plenty of power to escape Earth's gravity and get to the moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_l...

There's rocks, pictures, video, etc.

There was Apollo 13 which still took days to return after it's explosion, if it were in orbit it could come right back. Also, if they had just stayed in Earth Orbit, they would have been visible from the ground.

Also, the method they used to even get to the moon was quite obscure and never would have arisen had they been actually trying to go to the moon. The only two ways to get there were Direct Ascent and Earth Orbit Rendezvous. Since it was doubtful either could be done before Kennedy's goal, they thought up a risky but successful Lunar Orbital Rendezvous method. This never would have happened if it was made up.

The US and Soviet Union made great advances from Sputnik in 1957 until 1970. In fact, they were leading and could likely have beaten us had their main man not died in 1965(?), and if their overly complex rocket had worked rather then fail miserably.

Also, once the US decided on the goal, Werner Von Braun and his men finally got the money to design and build the amazing Saturn V. He was the man behind the first rocket which he developed in Nazi Germany decades earlier. Many smart men like him were around to do this amazing task.

OK, I think I've made my point.

The Challenger exploded in 1986, the Columbia exploded in 2003. That's 17 years apart. Since and between then, there were and have been hundreds of shuttle launches.

You can see the photos by typing in "Moon landing" on Google Images. I don't see why it's so difficult to believe that man landed on the Moon. Why would've we landed on the Moon seven more times after that, if it was faked? Why would the government spend millions of dollars on these missions?

You can choose not to believe it if you want, but believe me, it doesn't make you look intelligent. I strongly advise against using it as an ice-breaker at parties.

There are all sorts of technical reasons I can give to prove that the hoax-sayers are wrong and, moreover, either liars or fools. I won't bother as other people will do that.

Let's look logically, instead.

There is no reason NOT to believe they all happened. They're a part of history as much as the Wright Brothers' first flight, the Wall St Crash of 1929, D-Day, and Operation Desert Storm. You weren't around for most of those (maybe not even for Desert Storm), but you know they happened because they're just PART OF HISTORY.

The moon landings are the same. There's no "proof" required because they happened. They were as big at the time as Hurricane Katrina was in 2005.

Read this. Not all of it, just read the headings to find the issues that you doubt.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

Take a science class and you know a man walked on the moon. one for example explain all the numorous moon rockds NASA as aquired. The ships we used back then were made soley to go to the moon. We have had over 8 differnt missions to the moon five of those missions we landed on the moon. if you you want to know why the flag didn't stop moving when they touched it its becaue there was no air to stop the movement of the flag. If this was faked then lights from a studio would be overwhelming. please don't be ignorraunt,

The fact the same freemason used about 12 sockpuppets to answer your question should tell you all you need to know. The rocks are fake and the reflectors were put there by earlier unmanned probes like the Ranger and Luna missions.

Check this out:

Lawn furniture or super groovy interplanetary spaceship of the naive 60's?

http://moonmovie.com/images/AS11-40-5922HR.jpg

(make sure to enlarge in order to really get a good look at American engineering at its finest)

Do some research on this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons

Challenger and Columbia are irrelevant. It wasn't a shuttle that went to the Moon. That's like arguing that the Spitfire never flew because Concorde crashed.

You can believe what you like, the landings on the moon are a matter of historical fact, not opinion or belief. I've spent ten years looking into the subject, and I guarantee I have seen more of that record than you have. Did you know there are over 20,000 pictures, hours and hours of TV and film, millions of pages of documents and over 800lb of lunar rock and soil samples from those landings? have you even bothered to do any research of your own?

man moon

But the moon is so close!

If they were going to make something up, don't you think they would at least have picked up Mars?

I think we rely too much on technology now. I think they just put more work into it (Not like I have a clue or anything).

But here's my killer argument: If it was all a fake, the Russians could have faked it too.