Maybe 200 was a little bit to little, but the leaders shure wanted to keep the failure to be a secret and only let the leaders off the mission now about this.

Wait wait, I'm a bit lazy to read back, but was the camera set their somehow? Because if not, it was the camera man who was the first person to set foot on the moon.

I don't know any way to supply proof the American flag is there... without going and looking that is ...

Yes, the flag is still on the moon, but you can't see it using a telescope. I found some statistics on the size of lunar equipment in a Press Kit for the Apollo 16 mission. The flag is 125 cm (4 feet) long, and you would need an optical wavelength telescope around 200 meters (~650 feet) in diameter to see it. The largest optical wavelength telescope that we have now is the Keck Telscope in Hawaii which is 10 meters in diameter. The Hubble Space Telescope is only 2.4 meters in diameter - much too small!

Are there telescopes that can see the flag and lunar rover on the Moon?

So the people claiming to see the objects on the moon were lying? O_o

I did find this.

Using Clementine photos taken of the Apollo 15 touchdown zone, several anomalies can be seen. "All of them but one are related to small, fresh impact craters. The only one not related to any crater, exactly coincides with the landing site," Kreslavsky said.

maybe that was what they were referring to...

well, here are some reasons to beleive the moon landing was hoaxed (again, i choose to remain mostly neutral on the subject) I recently watched part of a documentary on the subject

1) The LEM that landed on the moon in the video left no crater or impact signs, even though it approached and landed on the moon at high speads

2) Armstrong had trouble piloting (he even had to evacuate before having it explode in a test run) the LEM in the 'stable' environment of the Earth, so how are astronauts expected to pilot the thing in space

3) There are no stars in the backround of the video, NONE

4) Some think the footage that aired could of been filmed on Area 51 (Groom lake, the desert part) because the desert near area 51 has craters comparible to that of the moon, it is a barren wasteland, and near/on a highly protected goverment facility, which would make it possible

5) The flag is waving in an atmosphere-free environment

6) The footage aired is comparible to a film made in 1978 called "Capricorn 1" which is about a space flight mission to mars

Personally, I am of the opinion that we did land on the moon, but for some reason the video itself was faked. I think that there is not only too much evidence to support the landing, but also too many people (such as Russia, insiders, etc.) that would have cried foul if we had pulled a hoax. I do however think that there are too many inconsistancies in the video to rule out trickery. Many of these were pointed out by roflcopter above. This opens up a new question in my mind. Why if we made it to the moon did we fake a video? Just my opinion.....

Well, I've read that the flag was "floating" around due to their being less gravity. But still, that isn't a good explaination for me, because that flag REALLY looks like wind is hitting it.

Even though I'm a believer when it comes to landing on the moon, I'm still a BIT skeptical.

No. There are some objects visible from earth.

can you plz supply a link?

From http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm:













from http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#crater:






uhhhh....yeah? We last landed on the moon in '72. The movie was made in '78. Point?

[quote name='TK0001' date='Mar 9 2006, 03:55 PM' post='1096982'
uhhhh....yeah? We last landed on the moon in '72. The movie was made in '78. Point?
[/quote]

my point was that it could recreated, the periods were reletively close, so technology wouldnt be too much more advanced, and Nasa had a much higher budget than the producers of the 1978 movie ( i think it was like 4.8 million and nasa had billions), so i think it entirely possible the footage could be recreated

The movie was made to look like the real thing!... imagine that...

LOL

I've seen a video of the flag moving though, it moved before the flag was put into the ground.

It was a long time ago though, I don't remember where I watched it.

We landed on the moon almost a full decade before that movie came out. If someone hangs their hat on this Capricorn One "evidence" to prove the moon hoax theory, then they really aren't looking at it objectively. Because that's pretty weak.

Right. The laws of physics still apply, even in a weightless and airless environment. When you move a stick around, a flag attacked to the other end is going to wiggle around, no wind needed (if this was done on a soundstage, where the heck did the wind come from?).

Incidentally, the flag is not standing on the move; it was knocked down when the astronauts took off.

This is one of the most common questions about the Apollo landings and is often used as evidence of a hoax. Fortunately there is nothing peculiar about what we can see here at all. Not if we remember this is happening on the moon.

Firstly the Flag had a horizontal bar attached to it at the top. This was done so that the flag would stand out from the flagpole. NASA appreciated that there would be no wind on the moon, so any normal flag would just hang limply and unattractively down the pole. To make things look better they added a bar that stood out at 90 degrees from the pole. The flag was really hanging from this, rather than from the pole. The bar was also not quite the full width of the flag, so that it was slightly furled to give a 'wave look' to it.

The moon's surface, once you get past the thin layer of dust, is very hard. So getting the flagpole to stick in was a tough job. The footage shows the astronaut twisting the pole back and forth in order to try and get it further into the ground. This movement made the attached bar and flag flutter.

The flagpole itself was light aluminium that is quite springy. Even once the astronaut let go the pole would continue to vibrate. This in turn would shake the bar and flap the flag. Without any air to dampen this it would continue to do so for longer than you might expect.

i wasnt trying to rely on the movie as evidence to prove definitivlyit was a hoax, i was simply pointing out it could be done, it can be done, and it is entirely possible that it was done

Hark is right. No telescope can see them. But we did land on the moon.

A matter of opinion, of course. And I disagree.

that seems like a pretty weak staement to me, once again, i still maintain neutral on the topic so just because i post evidence supporting the hoax doesnt necessarily mean i beleive it

Look at the accompanying picture:



The bar at the top of the flag is evident.

what i meant was that the flag waving seemed a little too "Flappy" to just have been caused by a vibrating pole

Even though I believe we went to the moon, I will admit that it looks like that to me as well.

time will tell... we will be back to the Moon, then we will know conclusively.

agreed

... just hope I'm the one laughing, and saying "see, I told you so"...

well, i did say i beleive in the landing on the moon many times, its just that some arguments are compelling and should be "recognised"

Pax Unum is correct. Just wait till we go back.

this is only my OPINION... the 'arguments' don't hold up, they only make any sense, if you believe in the, 'we didn't go to the Moon' conspiracy... this is only my OPINION!!!

Since I'm undecided, I'll do that either way.

don't hurt yourself, setting on that fence!

I'll be careful.

1. Every aircraft I've ever been on has approached the airport at high speed, none of them have ever left a crater.

2. Armstrong was an excellent pilot. He was very experienced as a test pilot and had flown the X-15 high altitude, high speed research plane.

3. This is a simply an effect of the way cameras work. If the exposure is correct for the brightl lit target object stars will be so under-exposed that they will not be visible.

4. Some people think that there are fairies at the bottom of their garden, it doesn't make it true.

5. The flag never waves. It is held in that position by the highly complicated process of having a stiff wire running along the top. Without this wire it would have looked a rather limp and pathetic thing.

6. Capricorn 1 was filmed 6 years AFTER the last moon mission. Capricorn 1 was inspired bt the fact that there are loads of nutters that believe America didn't go to the moon.

Incidently if you think through these points you will see how ridiculous the arguments are. In point 5. it is claimed that the flag is waving in an atmosphere free environment. In point 4. it is claimed that the landings were filmed in the desert near Groom Lake. Since when has the desert near Groom Lake been an atmosphere free environment?

I think we landed on the moon but it still doesnt answer these questions:

Why hasnt anyone else?
Did the other contries namely Russia just give up after we beat them? What about China or Japan?

Yes, the Russians gave up on the moon. Instead they concentrated on the Salyut and Mir space stations. Neither Japan or China have the capability yet. China has now flown two manned missions, in 2003 and 2005. They have stated that eventually they want to land a man on the moon, but that will be a few years yet. They will not be making their 3rd manned mission until 2008. On that mission they will have 3 men aboard and will make a space walk for the 1st time.

Let me once again reiterate that I do believe we went to the moon, but I don't agree with the statement of "we'll know when the next mission lands on the moon". What would that tell us? If you believe we landed there, you will probably be proud of new "evidence". If you don't believe this, then you'll be of the opinion that if the government lied the first time, why wouldn't they lie again. This is a no win argument, just like any conspiracy theory. Everybody sees there own facts and draws their own conclusions, and anything anyone else says to the contrary will be viewed as naive, uneducated, or concocted.

exactly...the moon is atmosphere free, which is why it might have been filmed near groom lake, which is why the flag could be waving if it was filmed there...plus, i never posted these as matters of claims or facts...i was throwin stuff out there, stuff i heard or saw in that documentary. If you've read past pages you will see that i am a beleiver in the landing on the moon, i just think that the film is a little 'iffy'. And capricorn 1 was about a landing that was faked, so dont you think that they couldve also faked the video about 9 years before? I dont think that there were to many technoligical leaps between the date of the first moon landing and the making of capricorn 1. if you compare the 2 landings, it looks VERY similar (just sayin )

we have definitley been to the moon i am one hundred percent sure

I wasn't aiming my disagrements at you personally.

My objection to the filming at Groom Lake wasn't well thought out, however if you read one of my earlier posts you will see that I pointed out that the dust kicked up by the astronauts could only have moved the way it did if the astronauts were in a vacuum. If this is the case the flag can't flutter in the breeze.

Capricorn 1 has a lot technically wrong with it, 2 way conversations between the astronauts and mission control being a major one. A signal takes about 12 minutes to reach Mars and the same to return. Capricorn 1 had the moon landings to copy so you would expect it to look similar.

The behaviour of the flag is very easy to explain. It was held out stiffly by a wire that ran across the top of the flag. What is claimed as the flutter as the vibration of the flag after it is touched by the astronauts as they planted it on the moon.

oh, ok, as long as you werent, like, 'sniping' at me lol

By late autumn 2008 NASA will have launched a spacecraft called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (NASA / Goddard Spaceflight Center Web Site.

This mission will carry a camera able to photograph ojects as small as 0.5m (about 1.5 feet). This means that it will have a resolution sufficient to be able to photograph the Apollo landing sites.

This should provide the evidence to convince the open minded doubters. However it will not convince the hard-core conspiracy theorists. They, of course, will state that the photos are fake, after all NASA is hardly going to produce evidence that they lied to world.

The beauty of a really good conspiracy theory is that, no matter how much rational argument or evidence you produce, the theorist will just say, "it's all lies."

So Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is not going to convince the loons but it will put the nails in the coffins of one of their aguments, namely that only a few people needed to know that the landings were faked. For the "cover-up" to continue nearly 4 decades after Apollo 11 it means that the "truth" will have had to be passed down through many, many employees.

Now, i've never been one to go looney with conspiracies like this one, but there is one thing I saw that makes me wonder...
I was watching some documentary on History channel or Discovery or somesuch, it showed a clip of the famous shot of earth from the apollo, but something moved between the camera and earth, like if you were to stand in front of a projector. Never been able to find it anywhere, and I find it quite humorous, as it is the only nearly credible peice of information i've seen regarding this.

And excuse the typing. I'm feeling lazy.

I must commend you, you just successfully countered most all arguments against the moon landings...well done!
I always believed the landing occured...but who knows i've been wrong before.

Well this being about conspiracy and did they or didn’t they, for me I would actually go all the way and say why? Why would they go to all that trouble? I know the expense was astronomical and a lot of people got rich but then why push it as far as they did?

Maybe they had an agenda that we the mere populous could not witness, maybe they had to point our eyes in one direction while something else was happening in another, just a thought?

Miss-direction, seems to be the way of the masons and we know who made it happen in the first place….

Us landing on the moon? Most definitely a landing but it wasn’t on the moon…..? Lol

Seek and ye shall find, ciao

We did NOT land on the moon people! All the evidence points to the contrary!


don't worry if you've been blasted by the fools who think that this actually happened, lol


If u reallyt hink that the lunar landing was real, and the video was real, then why did the dust created by landing not stay around in the air for the entire video? There isn't as much gravity!


And allt he photos taken seemed too good, no? You really tink that the astronauts were drilled months to use a camera, lol.


And there is ACTUAL EVIDENCE that one of the lunar rocks that has a picture taken of htem had a letter on it labeling it C. To think that they would be so sloppy with a film, lol




speechless? Or thinking of some psuedo-science to respond with?

Absolutely Not.

What are you talking about? The dust is going to fall the the ground regardless of whether the gravity is as weak as the moons or stronger.



Too good? According to who? Below, you say that there was a photo taken of a rock with the letter C... so apparently, according to your conspiracy crap, the photos taken dont all seem too good... and no, none of the photos looked like they needed months of training as photographers.



That turned out to be a hair on the negative.

Speechless, yes, but no because I can't think of an answer. More because you can post something like this, completly ignoring the very simple explanations for what you say.

All the evidence points to the contrary? Dramatic much?

Why didn't the dust stay in the air? Why would it? On Earth, the dust has to push its way past the air to get back to the ground. On the moon, it follows a standard trajectory path; it goes up, and then it goes down. If the dust had stayed up in the air, then we would have cause to be suspicious.

You also seem to be unaware of the countless hours upon hours the astronauts had to train in order to take pictures. Months? Yes, if not more. One does not simply strap a camera onto your chest and hope that pointing and clicking will be enough. High Quality pictures were a must, and in order to get them, the astronauts had to train. They weren't taking poleroids, for crying out loud. They took over 17,000 pictures, and I guarantee you not all of them were very good.

Incidentally, the C-rock was an error in photo printing. The negatives have no C on them. The C only appeared when a hair or somesuch contaminated the printing of the picture.

Could you maybe provide a link, Ned?