The Question to End All Questions

[Joe Matt]

Was the moon landing faked?

The Yes point of view: http://batesmotel.8m.com/

The No point of view: Of course not! Nowhere in this guys page did he mention why NASA would build all sorts of test simulations or even throw a huge capsul into the ocean for no reason. What about the lunar rock? No metion of that either.

My opinion?: They landed on the moon. Read the above statement.

NOTE: This isn't to poke at NASA due to Columbia, but rather a question that I think should be asked to the inteligent members of CD.

[Andy A.]

400,000 people were in on one big hoax?

Right.

Give me a break.

-Andy A.

Edit: I just went through that page. Rubbish. The kid has no clue what he's talking about. He even belives that stars would be visible from the moon. Geesh...

They say that if you watch the videos, you will notice that the shadows go in two directions as if there were two lights shining on it, like in a studio. If you think about it, during the day, on Earth, the sun causes shadows. At night, the moon causes shadows. On the moon, the sun can be shining on it to make one light source. If the moon is close enough to make shadows on Earth then Earth must be close enough to make shadows on the moon. Therefore, I believe that the two light sources are the sun and Earth and the theory that there can only be one light source on the moon is wrong. I think that the landing on the moon was real. If they actually didn't land on the moon, I don't think that space travel would be as possible or as safe as it is now. (it isn't very safe but it would be less safe) That is my theory.

What is this? That horrible O.J. Simpson movie??

Of course man landed on the moon

[Greg McCoy]

I thought that there were flood lights on the Lunar Module anyway, maybe not...

[FotoPlasma]

I wasn't there. I'll probably never be there. I can't tell if they're telling the truth, but I have no reason to think otherwise. It seems like it has been, and is, well within out technological grasp...

You can put up a lot of decisions based on the "Yes, because no one's disproved it, yet," base.

[GateRunner]

Its more fun to believe its true anyway

[sky547]

even though i do think that man did land on the moon, some of the evidence against it does make some sense...for example, there were cameras mounted on the space suits that they wore and the cameras had crosshairs on the lenses; some of the crosshairs ended up behind the actual photo...also, there is a "wall" of solar radiation between the moon and earth that the first space suits allegedly should not have been able to stand...another is that on the pictures, the astronauts might have been behind the shuttle (in the shadow) and everything on the picture would be indistinguishable because of the lighting but the astronauts would be super-bright...i'm not trying to prove anyone wrong because as i said i do think that we landed on the moon, but you have to admit that some of it does sound a little strange

[Frank(Aflak)]

I take issue with that website.

1) He keeps rambling on about a single light source. I find it hard to believe that in all the items Nasa hauled to the moon there were no lights.

2) He also talks about no visible stars. Let me talk to you about exposures. The sun reflecting off the moon is really, really bright. In order to photograph that without getting an image with blown out highlights, basically a big blob of white, you would need to use a really, really fast shutter speed. At that fast shutter speed, only the very brightest stars would appear. Hence the lack of visible stars. Learn photography if you are going to base a conspiracy theory on photographs.

3) The 'odd structure' seen in an astronaut's helmet reflection and in the corner of several images . . . well, I wonder if this man knows about a device the astronauts had called a 'lunar lander'

4) The lunar lander landing would create a crater with its thrust . . . . no. For example, look at the Harrier Jump jet, which can land on dirt without creating a huge crater . . . and weighs as much at least, probably more than the lander, and is operating on Earth where acceleration due to gravity is many times that on the moon. No crater.

5) What does the guy mean that the only way the rover would create sharp tracks would be if the surface was wet? Has he never seen a clear footprint left in a dusty baseball diamond?

6) The 400k people being in on it is rather improbably, like on the order of 1:somethingmuchlargerthanbillions

7) The radiation belts . . . sure, it sounds plausible, but have those belts been proven to exist or are they a theory? Do the really create the large amount of radiation that is claimed, and is the radiation very harmful? I doubt it.

8) If all the rest was faked, I would like to ask how NASA would fake a low gravity environment, as we see footage of golfballs going 'weeeeeeeeeeeeeee' and people hoping huge . . . . May I remind you of the Bond movie Goldfinger? If you recall, when Bond finally kills the bad guy, in this case by shooting a window out of a plane at high altitude, Goldfinger does this 'zero-g' floaty float down the cabin to the window and is then sucked out. The floaty float was one of the least convincing, most laughable special effects I have ever seen. Zero and low-g is really hard to fake, and as another example I will use the movie Contact, more recent, but again, as soon as we see a character is space (Hadden) and he goes 'floaty-float' I burst out laughing. "They" could fake the rest, but not the low gravity.



Where do they get these people?

[Dave_222]

If you said no Have you no faith in our technology. Given the amount of technology that was spawned from the event alone i have no choice but to believe it. where would computers be today if it weren't for the space program in the 60's and 70's.

[:Skinny Me:]

you will never know until you go there and see for yourself.

my observatoin:

i do believe that we relaly did go there. now some of the pictures could have been touched up a little. i mean hey even todays pictures are done like that.

you have to think. the cameras that were used, weren't the best of their day. it was 1969, OK? they are going to be fuzzy, and have some irregularites.

last off? how could you reproduce something like that? thinka bout it. you'd have to have a large area. you have to have complete darkness. and you would also have to have some of those kick-$@#$@#$@# lights like they have at Marshall in the Black room. which i don't believe they had back then.

eace:
:skinny me:

[Matthew936]

lets forget about science for a second. The Soviet Union would have never let us claim we landed on the moon before them if it weren't true.

[Marc P.]

Are there not high powered telescopes (e.g. hubble) which have taken pictures of the moon, complete with American flag on the surface of the moon? If that's not proof enough I don't know what is.

[Earl of the CC]

Go to www.badastronomy.com. They prove, conclusively that man did indeed land on the moon. The site offers a thorough debunking of all this "Moon Conspiracy" nonsense.

[Harrison]

I think they probably did. And, we will find out at some point...I read somewhere that Japan (or some country....help?) is sending a craft to (or around?) the moon, and it would be able to see whether or not Lunar Landers were ever there.

Also, I remember some time ago I was watching something on Fox (and yes, I know it was Fox afterall...lol) about the "moon hoax", and the one piece of "evidence" to support the notion that we didn't land on the moon is that in one of the pictures taken on the "moon", one of the little cross-hairs was behind the image, and not on top of it. Now, whether that image was faked or what, who knows.

Honestly, if they wanted to fake it, they probably could. Realistically, did they (did they fake it that is)? No.