Point well made, and likely true...

This is one of the primary reasons why I maintain that I am not giving proof, but rather, am providing knowledge. If one of a hundred HBs can actually take the time and make the effort to learn, and that knowledge opens a door for them, showing them the vast volume of information that they never knew about, then we've been successful, I think.


If it's proof of anything, it's proof that the human mind is not entirely dead and buried in the mire of so much societal silliness and conspiracy consciousness....humans can still learn! We can only hope.

I second that aspiration!

Very true, indeed!

Best,
Badeskov

____________________________This message for all, who argued with me.____________________________________
I am finish the dispute because it is exhausted.
Language barrier does not allow to develop a dispute.
Problem of Apollo interesting and extensive, it is impossible reduce to technical questions only. This problem of opposition USSR and USA. For answer to question: "Did we land on the Moon?" is necessary look not in the microscope, is necessary look from heights a eagle flight. So I did not enter into technical fineness of Apollo program on purpose. Though I read encyclopedia of the Getlend. I tried to take a look the history of Apollo from standpoints of ordinary schoolboy. I wanted that my discourses were comprehensible not only to the professor as well as housewife.
As I has got this forum on? Because Google gave me first this branch. I readed this topic on russian's forums three years. I wanted to know as this topic discuss in english forums. I wanted to know my own possibilities for a discussion on a english forum.
What have I done a conclusion from the discuss? You have arguments such either as NASA russian protectors have it. Your answers and answers of NASA russian protectors is the song of good co-ordinated chorus. I am convinced in existance of the international conspiracy between NASA protectors and NASA false critics. This conspiracy provokes a mistrust of society to the present NASA critics.
You turn a notions from legs on the head. For example, you call us believer, but we are sceptics unbelieveing to NASA words. Itself you believer NASA notwithstanding facts name sceptics. You call itself sceptics but believe NASA notwithstanding facts.
You do not have a material evidences for your stay on Moon. You believe in NASA moon behests as in bible. Twelve astronauts, walked on the Moon, are twelve apostles for you. The Specialists confirmed flight on the Moon, are authoritative theologians for you.
Finally the most main conclusion is I insufficiently well know english for the full-fledged debate.
I go to learn a english grammatics. I thank all who have argued with me for the polite attitude co to me. I will not return on this forum, but I not bid farewell with you.
We shall meet on other forum.

While Gatland was a considerable authority on space matters, he has been dead these 10 years and wrote very little in the 1990s when information about the formerly secret Russian space programme was being revealed. If he was your main source it would explain why you were so poorly informed on the comparative reliability statistics of the early US and Russian space programmes. There is now a considerable amount of data from those years available, including detailed personal stories from insiders in the Russian programme like Kamanin and Chertok. These in general confirm a lot of the work of Western analysts who identified various missions, hidden at the time under the catch-all Kosmos label, as part of a Russian manned lunar programme. If the Russians and the US were collaborating to fool everyone else about their moon programmes, hiding test missions seems a very curious way to go about it. Such a collaboration has no evidential basis and would involve a major re-writing of the history of the 20th century that anyone who lived through those years would find very hard to believe.

The whole reason you have failed to convince anyone in this thread is that you have put forward your hypothesis of US/Russian collaboration in a hoax without in any way attempting to provide supporting evidence.

I think one of the problems that you shall have to overcome is that you cannot discuss Apollo from the standpoint of an ordinary schoolboy. If you do not wish to understand the "technical fineness" of Apollo, how can you expect to understand how it happened, and that it happened?


This is the reason that I repeatedly asked you to put forth questions about Apollo that a schoolboy might ask...questions based upon you doubts. But you resisted, in favor of conspiratorial minded ideas.


Trust me, I can make an answer palpable to a housewife or a schoolboy...



It is a good co-ordinated chorus because the science and technology which propelled Apollo, and the un-disputed substantiation of the program, lends itself to a group of people who know something about it and can explain it. They all sound the same because they're all trying to explain to you the same thing...which you do not understand. They all do understand. This is akin to you coming onto a mathematical forum and stating that you believe that there is a conspiracy in place and that 2+2=5. What you will get is a group of mathematicians all telling you the same thing-- that 2+2=4, a substantiated and provable mathematical contention...and you would consider them nothing more than a good, co-ordinated chorus?



We are well aware that you do not believe NASA.
As I have repeatedly told you, Apollo is about knowledge, not belief. Belief is founded upon faith and conjecture. Understanding Apollo is about understanding the science and technology behind it. We are here to educate...not to foster belief.

Further, if you bothered to research, and pay attention (and again, ask a question based upon your doubts), you would realize that there is indeed material evidence for our stays on the Moon...more than exists for any project in the history of mankind. The specialists who have confirmed our flight to the moon have nothing to do with theology...they are scientists located all over the world.









That may be true, Rusish, but the attitude you put forth cuts cleanly through any language barrier. You are a hoax believer and conspiracy theorist...a difficult breed. You resist questioning us and resist the aquisition of knowledge in deference to your dearly held beliefs. If you learn English sufficiently to return to such a discussion, it will change nothing unless your mind changes along with your new-found linguistic skills.


You must be open to learning things which you know little about (Apollo). And trust me, we have seen those with fluency in English who are no different from you. Aquisition of language skills will do little more than enable you to be clearly understood in your obstinance, but such skills will do little to help you learn, unless your mind is prepared to accept knowledge that awaits, and is readily available, but which up to this time, you seem completely unwilling to ask about, or listen to when offered.

Good luck with your English studies!

Some of the stuff he says has been explained by people debunking the theory that NASA faked the lunar landing. There are websites that debunk it.

This website debunks some of their claims.

http://www.unmuseum.org/moonhoax.htm

I'll make this quick and brief



Because they were moving it. Say hello to inertia.



Due to a lack of hazing as there is no atmosphere it is impossible to judge how distant things are away. Some of those mountains you can see in the background, while they actually look like small hills they are huge mountains.



Uneven terrain. Maybe the question to ask here, is if there are TWO light sources as this poster claims, then why aren't there two shadows?



You can see the disturbance around and under the LM if you actually look. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/20130735.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/20130764.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/20129005.jpg



It is. They were in daylight. The cameras were set for exposure for daylight pictures.



Money



Someone obviously hasn't been keeping up with their space news



Also, the expectation of having a blast crater (presumably looking like a fresh impact crater?) under the LM is flawed. Does a garden hose sprayed at high pressure into the dirt create a blast crater? It surely blows the surface dirt in a radial direction and will clear out a small hole, but not a blast crater (like an explosion of dynamite, perhaps?). There is even an Earthly example of a rocket landing on dirt. The DC-X was a test flight program of a vertical takeoff and landing rocket. On one of its last flights, it made an emergency landing outside of the pad area. Despite the hydrogen/oxygen engine producing a thrust of some 60,000 pounds (about 20 times the thrust of the LM descent engine!), the engine produced a mark on the desert floor that was barely recognizable. Given that the descent stage engine bell is about 5 feet across at the bottom, and that thrust of the engine at touchdown was about 3,000 pounds, that blast pressure of the rocket exhaust was only about 1 pound per square inch - not much different from the pressure caused by the weight of an astronaut on the Moon standing on one foot while walking across the surface.
Its impossible for the Lander to land without making a crater, specially if how they say that the moon's surface is like powder/dust.



Space = Vacuum. Vacuum = No sound. The only thing they would have heard is the sound travelling through the structure and into the LM. That, and the vibrations. They also had headsets on.



Hydrazine (a fuel) and dinitrogen tetroxide (an oxidizer) were the Lunar Module propellants, chosen for their reliability; they ignite hypergolically –upon contact– without a spark. Hypergolic propellants happen to produce a nearly transparent exhaust.



Go and watch the video again, there's a huge amount of debris blown up. Plus the engine is hitting the descent stage of the LM.



Yes there certainly is. It's all uneducated rubbish.



Please don't. For the love of God.



They're onto you MID!



If someone kept hounding and harrasing you and telling you your lifes achievements are a lie and you are a fake, would you do something for that person?

No, not something for that person, but certainly something to that person (allusion to Buzz Aldrin punching Bart Sibrel).

Ah Gav and Lilly....


What more can I say.


Once again you have explained the situation adequately!

)Lil...I am glad you were not the one that the moron Sibrel harrassed...because what we'd have seen you do to him would likely have been much more virulent than Buzz's swat across the boob's kisser!!!!





Aw, c'mon Gav...you know I'm not the type of NASA disinformation agent who does that sort of wave-off...despite the fact that many of the woo woos who put forth this poppycock are in fact crazy people, and not worth the trouble of trying to prove wrong (they do this themselves most often anyway!).


But really, to Jim88:


Have you ever seriously thought about this?
Do you actually have doubts?


If so, ask about them ...ONE-AT-A-TIME, right here.
Do not supply a laundry list taken from some other web page. Think about your own doubts, and ask about them.


Here, you will get a thorough explanation, sources, and reference material so that you can research the answers for yourself and see that Apollo happened precisely as it has been described.

Think about it, and come back!

That's exactly what a NASA disinformation agent WOULD say MID! hehe

You've got a point there, Gav...




Once a NASA disinformation specialist, always one, I suppose!

I thought you had graduated to Government disinformation specialist

Best,
Badeskov

Who me? No, I have two "nice little doggies" that would most likely attach themselves to the most convenient part of anyone's anatomy who tried to push me around (not to mention my 6' 3" 235 lb 19 year old son with the black belt in Kempo). Actually, I think that considering how annoying Mr. Sibrel has been to various astronauts and their families he really did "get off cheap" with just one good smack on the kisser.

Oh yes...I almost forgot.

It was a pay-grade increase as well...never noticed because us GDAs work all the time, and can't find the time to spend their money anyway!

Well, yes, of course...that's what I meant.

You would sic your two "nice little doggies" upon the poor silly man, they'd bite him into submission (probably puking at the taste...), and then you would turn to your overtly large offspring, and say, "Sic 'em!"

You'd just stand there and direct the whole affair, a wry smile on your face!!!!

That's power!


...I'm glad you're not an astronaut who walked on the Moon, and that I'm not a half-rate moron named Sibrel who decided to accost you!

Why yes, that is indeed power of a sort! I never thought of it that way before, then again I've never been accosted by the likes of Mr. Sibrel either (thank goodness).

Sure! I can see it now.


Miss Lilly, first woman on the Moon, is walking into a building where she is to address a convention of folks, and here comes Sibrel, camera man trailing, holding a Bible...


"Excuse me Miss Lilly, people call you an American heroine, but I think your a liar. You can prove me wrong by putting your hand on this Bible and swearing right here before God and America that you walked on the Moon!"

Miss Lilly, the ever dignified heroine of the American Space Program, would never think of swatting him across the face, or kicking him in the pants...as other astronauts have done. No, not Miss Lilly! She turns slowly to face Mr. Sibrel, smiles gently, and with an imperceptiple motion of her eyes, summons Junior...a 6' 9" tall kempo guy with a really mean look on his face into action.

SUddenly...without him ever seeing what was happening, Sibrel's knees buckle beneath him, he gasps, and he finds himself grasped in a vise-like choke hold. Miss Lilly, always cool and collected, gazes upon the now choking and supine Sibrel...and feels compassion as she sees that he is in obvious distress...indeed, a few more seconds and he may explode, since his head is swelling and his eyes are bugging out and his skin color is a rosy, cherry red.

She becons her immense son to let him go, and of course, he does. A snap of her fingers and her two canine companions (always at her side...indeed, it has been rumored that she took them along to the Moon with her in her Personal Preference Kit...two doggie travel kennels stowed in the lower equipment bay of her spacecraft) assume a menacing position at Sibrels now depleted flanks.

Her son grabs the Bible and holds it in front of Sibrel, and Miss Lilly says, "Now, Mr. Sibrel, you're going to put your hand on that Bible and swear that I went to the Moon, walked on its surface, and returned 200 pounds of Moon rocks to the Earth, and you're going to say that you've been a complete weenie and a moron about this whole thing, that you've been wrong the whole time, and...you're going to apologize and guarantee that you'll never harass anyone again about this....or, my two sweet dogs here, who are obviously very hungry, are going to eat you while your cameraman films it, OK?"


He does so. Miss Lilly, the astute business woman that she has always been, has the film produced on DVD, sells a million copies, and makes a fortune on it.


Yep...that's POWER.
You should've gone to the Moon. Then, we wouldn't have this moronic upstart putting out his silliness!

It is good to see some humour on this subject, but maybe we should leave it here. It is a fine line between a bit of fun and overstepping the mark to the point where people begin to take offence. Let's get back on topic before we over step that mark.

Thank you.

Indeed, a most clever and amusing fantasy you've dreamed up there MID. I especially like the part about me making a boat load of money!

But, like Waspie said, back on topic before we get too far 'out there'!

Ah yes, well, we've gotta have some humor every once in a while...


But, the original topic again is, "Did we land on the Moon?"--that question which defies description and origin, but which nonetheless continues to rear its head...


My Opinion:

We certainly did.
We arrived there at precisely 4:17:40 pm EDT on Sunday, 20 July 1969, and we left for the last time at 8:29:52 pm EST on 14 December 1972--certainly the most intense, stimulating, and remarkable 3 1/2 years of many people's lives.

I'd love to say, "Case closed," but alas...that I feel shall not be possible.

I reckon that the moon landing was a hoax and my grandpa had said that he felt it was, and I am sure I believe him.

Edit reason: I did say and word it pretty stupidly.

Forget all the evidence that proves beyond a doubt that Apollo landed on the Moon. Ignore the photographic proof. Put out of your mind that amateur astronomers and radio enthusiasts from around the world (as well as the highly professional experts of the Soviet Union) tracked the spacecraft there and tracked them back. Abandoned the fact that we have samples of Lunar soil whose authenticity has been confirmed by experts from many nations. Disregard the signals from the scientific packages left behind by the astronauts or the laser reflectors still being used today.

All of this means nothing because ExpiredBattery was told by his grandpa that it was fake. That is the clinching evidence. Except for one flaw in his argument: my Dad told me iot is true and as my dad is better than his grandpa he must be wrong.

I really hope you were attempting humour here ExpiredBattery because if this was a serious attempt at debate I suggest you Google the word "evidence".

OK:

First you feel, then you know in fact, then you believe.


I think we're getting somewhere!
Belief is generally at the base of all hoax ideas.

Now, you are 16, as evidenced by your profile.
That means that your grandpa couldn't be much younger than his late-50's or perhaps early 60s, right?

Not too many people in that age range actually would consider that the Apollo program was a fake. There are a very small few, of course....

He couldn't know that.
Trust me, I DO KNOW that he is incorrect...if indeed he is telling you this sort of thing.


How about you leave your grandpa out of this, and tell me:





What is it that you believe that leads you to the erroneous conclusion that the most documented and substantiated occurrance in human history was a fake?


Your own questions would be of value here...
That'll tell me your brain is working; you have your own questions; and, that you have a desire to learn something which you do not know.

Why should he know? What special qualifications does he have for knowing? Is he in fact one of the hitherto elusive hoaxers? Give us the details.

I spoke with an alien as of late, and he assured me that we landed there, but he has been there for much longer, and we should stop making such a big deal out of it.

1. My grandpa isn't alive anymore.
2. He was psychic (if you believe in that stuff)

What else?

And also can you lot cut down on being so rude?

Thanks.

No one was being rude, they were however pointing out how ridiculous your post was. To be quite honest I thought you were joking as I did not believe that anyone could seriously make a claim like that.

There have been many posts by hoax believers all of them have failed to provide any evidence to prove their case but yours, by far, is the lamest argument so far. If you wish to debate the subject this is the place to do it, but if you are going to make posts like this then no one is going to take you seriously.

Whether people believe in psychic phenomena or not is toatally irrelevant. There is overwhelming evidence to show that your Grandpa was wrong about this. The Apollo programmes are not an issue of belief but of scientific knowledge and fact. For your Grandpa's opinions to even be considered as evidence you would first have to prove that psychic abilities exist (this has never been done to any scientifically recognised level). You would then have to prove that your Grandpa had such abilities. You would then have to prove that he actually made the claim that the Apollo landings were fake and that these claims were based on his scientific abilities not just his opinion. If you can do all that (and you are likely to get a Nobel prize if you can manage it) then you would have one tiny piece of evidence.

It is good to listen to one's parents and grandparents but that does not make them experts on everything. Sometimes it is best to think for yourself.

Well I am telling the truth...
But obviously I realise you cannot believe some user who is writing on the internet. That is understandable.
Now, what evidence is there that you landing believers actually could give to me, to prove my grandpa wrong?

I am sure you are telling the truth. I am sure your Grandpa believed what he was saying, he was still wrong though. Try reading my first reply to you, or the rest of this thread if you are interested in real evidence rather than the opinions of relatives.

I can't be bothered to start anything with you or let you get me worked up.
I am just going to say whatever and I shall try not to run into you on this section of the board again.
I just don't like being insulted and I definitely don't like people insulting my beliefs, my relatives beliefs etc.

So thanks, but no thanks.

No one has insulted you or you beliefs. Indeed I have stated that I believe your Grandpa was sincere. My father (and his father before him) also believed in psychic abilities and so I certainly am not going to ridicule you for that, but the Moon landings are not about belief they are about knowledge and scientific evidence.

You ask about evidence for the moon landings but then show a singular unwillingness to read that very evidence. This is the intellectual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting, "la la la," when someone is trying to tell you something that you don't want to hear.

You can choose to believe what you want but if you go through life with an attitude that are not prepared to listen to anyone that can show you that you might be wrong then I am afraid you will learn very little.

Pretty much what Waspie said....


I'll reiterate what I said:




We are inviting you to ask questions, that you might learn something you don't know.
The knowledge is here for the taking.

What could be more fun?

This is not a demeaning thing...it is an offer.




Can you be bothered to learn? That's what we're here for.

No need to get worked up. It doesn't require getting worked up to piece your own thoughts togtether, and ask a question.
Besides, you're far too young to be getting worked up. At 16, you have a whole life ahead of you! Learning things is the fun part of life!




I am sorry that your Granpa is not alive any more.

However, learning something that he did not know will not diminish his value to your life in the least...at least, it shouldn't.

"What else?" is precisely what I'm asking you.

You want to learn something? This is the place to ask.

The is a million dollars on offer to anyone who can convincingly demonstrate a psychic phenomenon:
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

Until the prize is claimed, I for one don't believe that stuff.

Your and your relative's beliefs are pretty insulting to the 400,000 people who worked to put men on the moon. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

All we really know is what were told. I believe you're right about Metals & space suits.

Where is the proof?

The proof that satellites are real and that your argument is nonsense is simple. Go out on a clear night. Find a dark area away from light pollution. Look up. That is it. You wont have to wait long before you see a satellite.

Off the subject slightly, In 1996, there was talk of NASA budget cuts, very shortly
It was announced that rocks from Mars were discovered that contained a form of
life. How ironic!!!! Never forget that NASA is a branch of the Government, failure is
Not an option.

Umm... there is a lack of pressure in space...

Off course you forget to mention that the budget was cut and has continued to fall in real terms. It's a real shame when minor inconveniences, such as the facts, get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

From Wikipedia:



Source: Wikipedia - NASA Budget

Indeed. So many people seem to thank that a vacuum sucks without realising that it is the internal pressure that pushes. Both ReignStarz and Cynical1 seem to fail to understand this.

Most unmanned satellites are not pressurised (except for things such as the fuel tanks). However even a spacecraft pressurised to the normal for the Earth's surface, 1 atmosphere 9atm) only has a pressure difference to the vacuum of space of 1 atm (space being as close to zero as makes no odds). That is not a fantastic amount of pressure. In fact it is about the same as a can of Coke fresh from the fridge and about half that of a can of Coke at room temperature (source for can pressure figures: hypertextbook.com). Funnily enough metal (in this case aluminium) seems to be perfectly adequate for the job.

If these two gentlemen do not believe that metal is strong enough hold a pressure of just 1 atm I would love to hear how they think it can manage with the substantially larger pressures found in things such as gas cylinder and fire extinguishers.

There seems to be a growing trend that when people do not understand a scientific principle, rather than learn about it, or at least admit that they don't understand it, they simply refuse to believe it and shout "fake". I find this disturbing.

We landed on the moon END OF STORY!

The real story is "why haven't we been back?"

It's called taking the easy way out. Why bother to think/learn when one can simply scream *fake* and *conspiracy*! Yeah, it's certainly disturbing.

At least most conspiracy theorists (or at least those selling the books and making the money) make some attempt to sound scientifically credible (even if it isn't) and many on this board will at least attempt to use scientific reasoning to prove the conspiracy (some better than others). This, however, is something different. I've seen it in discussions on evolution too. The logic seems to run:

• I don't understand it.
• It isn't possible for me to not understand things so if I don't understand it, it must be wrong.
• If it is wrong it must be a conspiracy.

It's not just the easy way out but seems to be an arrogance, a failure to admit that others may know more.

thats my question also...you will be told; it's all about money. but i dont believe that...im not sure why noones gone back....

Yes people will be told that essentially, it is all about money.
It always has been all about money.

You merely refuse to believe this economic and completely understandable fact.

Budgets were cut, starting in 1968. Eventually, Nixon scrapped the final 3 flights of Apollo in 1971.
He diverted fiunding to the Shuttle program, because he wanted his own space legacy...which of course he never got....because the budget was too low and required a hell of a lot of detailed engineering to come up with a compromise to the original plans.

We had no public or governmental mandate to go back to the Moon.
The congress wouldn't consider appropriating the funds for such a venture, and , they didn't.


In a nutshell, that's why we didn't go back. Nixon confirmed his ideas during the Apollo 17 mission, when he said that that flight (17) would likely be the last time man visits the Moon in this century. He was correct.


Now, we have funding, and a governmental mandate, and we will return...so long as the appropriate government remains in power.


If you wish to believe that simple economics and popular support (or lack thereof) doesn't drive manned space efforts, and prefer to take this salient, and very simple factual basis as evidence of a hoax...so be it.

It would perhaps be better if you had some education in Economics 101. That would explain it completely for you.

It is better to learn than to believe. I think this was covered about 20 pages ago.
But pressures are indeed non-existent in vacuum. They are not too high.

What Waspie said is true about spacecraft internal pressures and the differential.

Pressures are actually vastly higher at deep sea depths. Yet, we have craft that have descended thousands of feet, with much higher pressure differentials than any spacecraft has ever experienced...


No proof is necessary regarding something that has been done, time and again, sucessfully. The proof is right in front of one's face.
Space suits and pressure suiits have worked effectively in low pressures for decades. It's somewhat easy.

What's truly amazing is that a craft can descent 35,000 feet under the ocean, at incredible ATM pressures on the order of 1000 atmospheres...and not be crushed. the idea of a 1 ATM differential in space flight, at best, between inside and outside pressures, is rather easy to contenmplate, when considering that human engineeering has built vessels that can withstand a thousand times that much pressure differential...

Money and political will (the two are interlinked). There has not been the political will to return to the moon because it isn't a vote winner. Because it isn't a vote winner the money has not been provided.

Back in the sixties it was a huge vote winner, America simply had to beat the Soviets to the Moon. Having won the race politicians from the Nixon Administration onwards simply saw no reason to continue it.

Now America is going to return to the Moon. Ask yourself this question, is it coincidence that the political will (and therefore money) have returned at the same time as China announced that they were planning to place a man on the Moon? Do you really think that it would be a vote winner for US politicians to stand by and allow a Communist nation to have a space flight capability that the US once possessed but gave up?

Votes = political will = money found. It is as simple as that.

I have, from time to time, questioned the authenticity of NASA's claims of reaching the moon. I don't think we'll ever really know the truth. But given what we know about the government, I wouldn't doubt that they would be totally willing to pull something like this. If you ask me, it was faked.

An interesting view point from someone whose profile quote is, "The truth is the truth is the truth is the truth. Period."

I tend to think that it is your profile quote that is correct and your statement from the above post that is wrong. When NASA returns to the moon by 2020 followed by the Russians/Europeans, the Chinese, the Japanese and even the Indians those that claim that it is impossible to go to the moon will be shown to be wrong. When the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is launched at the end of next year it will carry a camera powerful enough that it may be able to image some of the Apollo hardware on the Moon. This will provide the proof that Apollo took place.

There will be a small minority of hard core of hoax believers who will claim that the photos are faked, or that the hardware was placed on the Moon by unmanned space craft. This will not be a case of not knowing the truth, it will be a case of denying the truth and that is a different matter all together. Sadly that is what many hoax believers already do, they cherry pick evidence, present small bits out of context and claim it is proof of a fake whilst ignoring (or simply dismissing as lies) the vast amount of evidence that shows that they are wrong. These people would still believe that the landings were hoaxed if NASA launched them to the moon and threw them out the air lock naked. They would be calling NASA liars with their dying breath. That, though, is strong belief not truth.


I also think that they are capable of pulling of something like this, "this" being landing 12 men on the moon and returning them to the Earth. We all know that governments are capable of telling lies, that doesn't mean that they are incapable of telling the truth.


Is this based on any actual evidence or just gut feeling and a dislike of the government?

My tendency would be not to ask you (nothing personal you understand), but rather refer to the vast amount of evidence which overwhelmingly supports the authenticity of the Apollo landings. Or, if I was going to ask anyone, to ask the thousands of experts such as aerospace engineers, astronomers, geologists, physicists, etc that have examined the evidence (in some case the physical evidence such as the moon rocks or the Apollo hardware) and believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that between 1969 and 1972, 12 American astronauts walked on the surface of the Moon.

You are correct in your personal statement that the truth is the truth, this is true regardless of personal beliefs. In this case the truth is easy to find, just weigh up the evidence and you will find that there is absolutely none that supports the moon landings being faked.

This is a case where the truth is not only the truth, it is also knowable. It really doesn't take much time to find the truth.