Did man really walk on the moon?

[Shoden]

it was a hoax filmed to make it look real as possible

the flag would actually not move as it doesnt have gravity to wave against so if it did wave it would wave differently and very strangely depending on how much force energy was transferred and by what i interpret it aint much

another piece of evidence

the shadows are facing the wrong place if you know this the light reflecting there would mean the shadows would be facing a whole different way to that in these movies the evidence shows that the real light was coming from a different source causing the shadows to stay away from the point they need to be and another thing after the camera goes back to the astronauts the shadows are pointing the opposite way

answer 1. the light is from a spotlight which can be controlled with its brightness and moved at will

Answer 2. the sun is demented and deranged so the light comes and goes at different angles

Answer 3. there is more things behind the cameras

[Endless]

Search better?

Edit: I guess they also faked the liftoff? And the pictures from the spaceship of Earth? Aswell as the close to a hundred other pictures?

[Doomgaze]

I still don't think there's ever been a picture taken from Earth of the landing sites sharp enough to see anything manmade. If someone can actually find a picture, that would be great, but I don't think it's been done.

If it was done as "real as possible" and your assertations about the flag are correct, don't you think they'd make the flag not move? These are experts. They wouldn't fake the landing just to leave evidence someone with an elementary school science education (barely) such as yourself could figure out.

Now then.

THE MOON HAS GRAVITY. This is somewhat important, because you will note that the flag does not fly off into space, nor do the astronauts.

Now then, there were several forces acting on the flag. The astronaut moving the pole (remember Newton's first law? The flag will want to stay put, and the pole will pull it along). Gravity is pulling the flag down, hence it's not sticking out sideways or anything like that. Finally, the act of driving the pole into the lunar soil would set the pole and flag to vibrating. Also, as has been said, the top pole to hold the flag out is not fully extended - the astronauts liked the rippling effect.


As for the shadows... like Ba said, the moon is NOT FLAT. Here's an excellent debunking of that part of the hoax.


Anything else you'd like us to shoot down?

[Shoden]

flat or not light doesn't have that type of power unless mirrors and artifical lights involved

[Doomgaze]

If you'd click the link, it explains everything.

[Shoden]

i'm busy at the minute so i cant

[Doomgaze]

...

Then stop trying to pretend you know what you're talking about, please...

[alexholker]

who said the pole was even made of alluminium?

it would be a more stable and better supportive metal like steel

No, it wouldn't. It is very expensive to transport things into space, they would want to keep the mass to a minimum. They aren't going to waste any more mass than is absolutely neccessary on something as useless as a flagpole, are they?

[Raistlin]

1. Our landing is invisible from earth, as is the generally accepted theory. Something that was actually disproven by that one pic taken. It'd HAVE to be visible from earth to show the earth, no doubt.

Theoretical line-of-sight is different than viewable. Just because the sun reaches the Earth at all points on the Earth(which means it was illuminated to be able to see from the moon) doesn't mean the sun reached that point on the moon, making it invisible to people from the Earth.

Your main theory still is "we could have faked it, so we must have faked it." Your logic(or lack thereof) confounds me. Every single piece of "evidence" you have is countered by logic and physics. The rest of your proof stems from ability - sure, we had the capability to fake the first landing, but why, since, logically and scientifically, there's no reason whatsoever the doubt the validity of the landing?

[Emerald Aeris]

Of course we did, even excluding all the points raised here, we would know by now just from the pictures. There's NO way that way back then they'd be able to mimic/doctor the pictures. Even if they could do so convincingly, there are ways available today where you can be damn sure an image was doctored or not. In short, by examining the film and pictures we'd be able to tell if we didn't. Even if the american government stiffled opposition, someone would've uncovered it with real proof if it were a real threat. Y'know, maybe the countries the US was bitterly competing with, like China and Russia. They'd have a field day if it were really fake.

[udsuna]

Theoretical line-of-sight is different than viewable. Just because the sun reaches the Earth at all points on the Earth(which means it was illuminated to be able to see from the moon) doesn't mean the sun reached that point on the moon, making it invisible to people from the Earth.

Your main theory still is "we could have faked it, so we must have faked it." Your logic(or lack thereof) confounds me. Every single piece of "evidence" you have is countered by logic and physics. The rest of your proof stems from ability - sure, we had the capability to fake the first landing, but why, since, logically and scientifically, there's no reason whatsoever the doubt the validity of the landing?

Ah, but the point was raised earlier: you see sunlight (or something that is supposedly sunlight) in the pictures. If that's sunlight: then that location gets solar light, as well as terran reflection, and should be imageable from earth. But, they cannot, so they do not... it's a simple correlation.

And your wrong: MY stuff isn't about the physics, it's about the conditions. Location and circumstances. Means, motive, and opportunity, and very good ones. Shoden is trying to argue physics. And doing a *REALLY* bad job of it... I wish he'd stop... he's already making this difficult enough.

[Doomgaze]

Theoretical line-of-sight is different than viewable. Just because the sun reaches the Earth at all points on the Earth(which means it was illuminated to be able to see from the moon) doesn't mean the sun reached that point on the moon, making it invisible to people from the Earth.

I don't quite follow. We can clearly see sunlight in the Apollo 11 pictures...

[udsuna]

Of course we did, even excluding all the points raised here, we would know by now just from the pictures. There's NO way that way back then they'd be able to mimic/doctor the pictures.

Ah, but that's the point. The didn't doctor the pictures. They faked the landing. My theory's simple: they prepped their dozenth or so launch, sent it up, found they lost their chance to land on the moon, broke out the contingency fake, sent it from the shuttle itself, and played that off as the landing itself, then drifted a while before going back to earth. They wanted to land, they tried to land, they couldn't land, they faked the landing. Hence, the launch itself was definately real. Also, they'd probably dumb the landing module towards the sun itself. Burn, baby, burn.

[Doomgaze]

Your scenario doesn't make any sense. So they... went to the moon, somehow... couldn't land? Somehow took pictures of them on the surface without being on the surface, and cut the LM loose to float off into space?

[udsuna]

You don't SEE any pictures of them on the moon, per se. You see a bunch of spacesuits walking around on a rocky, grey, poorly lit surface. You're told it's the moon. You're told it's the crew of that particular ship. It's not like you can see any faces.

And many of the prior lunar launches came within very close range of the moon. They usually couldn't slow themselves enough to be able to land the module, launch it, and catch it. Remember, the rocket itself never actually touches the moon. Those things are designed to be disposable. Also, sometimes, there were technical glitches. Most of the early attempts at the moon were *painfully* close to success. Aside the ones that were called off on account of weather or whatnot.

So, the missions follow this plan: launch rocket, achieve orbit around moon, drop module in general landing area, walk about on moon, launch pod that comes with module, catch pod with shuttle, go back to earth, and crash-land in the ocean. If the module cannot safely land and be retrieved, you give up and go home. Then, when they pick everyone up, they take what they can back with them and leave the trash to sink into the depths of the sea.

The only change you need to make is *really* simple: bring along a taped fake of a lunar walk. Quite probably, the voice-over was done on earth, by the astronauts. It's not like you have to worry about audio slips... just use the actual com. radios of the suits themselves. And a simple enough order: if you can, land on the moon. If you can't, use the fake. We probably won't have another shot of this within the deadline, and the american people need this victory. Good luck.

And then, the very next launch happens ahead of schedual (or, at least, not behind schedual like all the others). And everything goes so perfectly, and they manage a moon landing. Making the fake unnecessary, but it's not like the guys in charge could go. "Oh, the first was a fake". And until the crew of that first launch are dead, any person who knows is going to keep quiet to protect them.