Published on September 8th, 2014 | by david-milne

Did man really walk on the Moon ???

Did man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick, asks David Milne? The greater lunar lie. In the early hours of May 16, 1990, after a week spent watching old video footage of man on the Moon, a thought was turning into an obsession in the mind of Ralph Rene.

“How can the flag be fluttering,” the 47 year old American kept asking himself, “when there’s no wind on the atmosphere free Moon?” That moment was to be the beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for the self-taught engineer from New Jersey. He started investigating the Apollo Moon landings, scouring every NASA film, photo and report with a growing sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake.

NASA Mooned America By Ralph Rene Cover of PDF Download Book

Click the Book Cover to Download the PDF File

It is of course the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. But Rene has now put all his findings into a startling book entitled NASA Mooned America. Published by himself, it’s being sold by mail order – and is a compelling read.

The story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space, leaving a panicked America trailing in the space race.

At an emergency meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver, put a man on the Moon. With an impassioned speech he secured the plan an unbelievable 40 billion dollars. And so, says Rene (and a growing number of astro-physicists are beginning to agree with him), the great Moon hoax was born.

Between 1969 and 1972, seven Apollo ships headed to the Moon. Six claim to have made it, with the ill fated Apollo 13–whose oxygen tanks apparently exploded halfway–being the only casualties.

But with the exception of the known rocks, which could have been easily mocked up in a lab, the photographs and film footage are the only proof that the Eagle ever landed. And Rene believes they’re fake. For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts gambol threw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film “man’s greatest achievement” from a TV screen in Houston–a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it.

By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that’s just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred. As Rene points out, that’s not all:

  • The cameras had no white meters or view finders. So the astronauts achieved this feat without being able to see what they were doing.
  • Their film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless.
  • They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized clubs. It should have been almost impossible to bend their fingers. .

Award winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows:

  • The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and, in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.
  • The American flag and the words “United States” are always brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow.
  • Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.
  • The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly.

David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by “whistle blowers”, who were keen for the truth to one day get out. If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we’ve only NASA’s word that man ever went to the Moon. And, asks Rene, why would anyone fake pictures of an event that actually happened?

The questions don’t stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth’s Van Allen belt. But the Moon is 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.

John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, “about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil”. How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn’t rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer–not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started.

“They should have been fried,” says Rene. Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn’t one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one defect could have blown the whole thing. “The odds against this are so unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot,” says Rene.

Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin “the second man on the Moon”–was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface.

Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. “It strikes me he’s suffering from trying to live out a very big lie,” says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life. Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut, was due to pilot Apollo 1. In January 1967, he baited the Apollo program by hanging a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty: “if there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it’s likely to be me.”

Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and his two co-pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded. Scientists couldn’t believe NASA’s carelessness–even a chemistry student in high school knows high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is a spectacular accident rate.

“One wonders if these ‘accidents’ weren’t NASA’s way of correcting mistakes,” says Rene. “Of saying that some of these men didn’t have the sort of ‘right stuff’ they were looking for.”

NASA won’t respond to any of these claims, their press office will only say that the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real. But a NASA public affairs officer called Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a lunar landscape. It had been made on a mission film set and was identical to what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape.

“The purpose of this film,” Scheer told the enthralled group, “is to indicate that you really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception.” He then invited his audience to “come to your own decision about whether or not man actually did walk on the Moon”. A sudden attack of honesty? You bet, says Rene, who claims the only real thing about the Apollo missions were the lift offs. The astronauts simply have to be on board, he says, in case the rocket exploded. “It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn’t left with three astronauts who ought to be dead,” he claims, adding that they came down a day or so later, out of the public eye (global surveillance wasn’t what it is now) and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later.

And now NASA is planning another giant step–project Outreach, a one trillion dollar manned mission to Mars. “Think what they’ll be able to mock up with today’s computer graphics,” says Rene chillingly. “Special effects was in its infancy in the 60′s. This time round will have no way of determining the truth.”

Space oddities:

  • Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.
  • A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16′s Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?
  • One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?
  • The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.
  • The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn’t America make a signal on the Moon that could be seen from Earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.
  • Text from pictures in the article show only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?
  • The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn’t match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering?
  • How can the flag be brightly lit when its not facing any light ?
  • And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?
  • The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust.
  • The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it’s never been fired…

Share the Nectar!

If you Love Me Distribute My Books -- Srila Prabhupada

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

518 Responses to Did man really walk on the Moon ???

  1. carol sinclair says:

    I always wondered about the same things!!!! And what about the structures on the moon…???

    • john edwards says:

      I looked into manned exploration of Mars for a university project recently so I learnt quite a lot about the hardware/ spacesuits and rockets used for the Apollo missions, and I’d like to say that a lot of the so-called ‘facts’ in this article are laughably wrong, for instance, that the lunar lander weighed 17 tonnes despite being made from ‘heavy duty tin foil’, that the pressure inside a spacesuit is greater than inside a football (spacesuit pressure in those days was about one third of atmospheric pressure on Earth, e.g. very low), also, spacesuits were incredibly well engineered with layers of material to stop the radiation, plus they weren’t exactly up there long, so no wonder none of them developed cancer…

      Basically this article is riddled with basic errors that if you just looked into the subject you would easily see for yourself. Also, if it was faked why have the Russians kept so quiet? or why haven’t more of the 300,000 people involved in the Apollo missions come forward to blow the whistle?

      • Madhusudana Dasa says:

        If John Edwards really “looked into” this topic I presume he also “looked into” alternative views also?
        If not I would encourage him to look into “What Happened on the Moon by David Percy,” which is a superb DVD production. I am 100% sure he will find more than enough answers to any questions he may have on this issue from this thorough investigation of such an infamously great hoax.

        • Soul says:

          Dear Sir,

          vedas says 108times daimeter of moon -distance between earth n moon

          but here im seeing 800000miles

          can anybody clarify

          • Where does the Vedas say this?

            We are talking specifically about the cosmology of the Srimad-Bhagavatam. Where is this said in the Srimad-Bhagavatam???

            You can not just pick things like this out of the air and say “the Vedas says it” with no reference?

          • racas says:

            Don’t you think that the American administration just wants the controversy to continue on? it gives the US a shadowy aspect of ” can fool everyone” even if it is not true. it is a win-win for the policy makers, so i don’t think we will ever know the truth.

            On the other hand, David Percy is an award winning television and film producer, a professional photographer and also a member of the Royal Photographic Society. He is co-author, along with Mary Bennett, of the fascinating book ‘Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers’ (ISBN 1-898541-10-8). He also made a film/documentary ‘What Happened on the Moon?’, a film that also features Mary Bennett and one which I strongly recommend if you have an interest in the Apollo missions. Percy firmly believes that the Apollo footage was either faked or not the original film that was shot on the Moon. He believes that many anomalous features that would alert the eagle eyed viewer, could have been placed in the films by whistle blowers who were deeply dissatisfied to be a part of the cover-up. He has studied the entire transfer of the original film on video tape, a feat that not many people have done.

          • Daniel P says:

            If there are people out there that still do not believe that humans have been to the moon then it simply proves how little education many people are receiving.

          • Why should anyone believe that humans have been to to Moon Daniel. Honestly Daniel how do you know that humans have been to the Moon? It is only blind faith in NASA. They say they went to the Moon and you believe them. They have no proof they have been to the Moon. And the proof they did not go to the Moon is that in the 60′s they had no problems sending multiple successful manned missions to the Moon with technology that is stone-age compared to the technology we have today. But today NASA have no idea at all how to send men to the Moon. They can not do it. And since those glorious days of manned space expeditions in the 60′s no man has even left Earth orbit. Then, in the sixties, we could send men to the moon, 250,000 miles, transmit live television from the Moon back to Earth, and fly them safely back home another 250,000 miles. Now, fifty years later, with fabulously improved technology the best we can do is send men to the international space station which is not more than 250 miles up in the sky…

            So if we were so successful at manned space missions in the sixties then how on earth is it possible that we have now forgotten how to do it? How is is possible that the technology of manned space flight did not develop, why did we never try to go anywhere else, like Mars. Why did we never go back to the Moon???

            So all these facts actually prove that we were never able to go to the Moon in the first place and Daniel there is not one single piece of proof that men ever walked on the Moon. I challenge you to prove that men have walked on the moon. But there is no proof at all Daniel. You simply have blind faith in NASA.

            Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

            Madhudvisa dasa

      • are u mad?do u really think that without lead it is really possible for any person to get rid of the massive radiations of the van Allen belt?and the main cause for it may have been the Vietnamese war and Russia’s advancement.why don’t you yourslf think?why don’t u acknowledge that Russia’s intelligence is much much greater than America’s?

      • steve larson says:

        This article is the “Hoax”. Mythbusters blew apart many of the hoax claims.

        • jagat candra das says:

          Mythbusters are the equivalent of moronic religious fanatics whose self styled mission is based on erroneous & bird-brained comprehensions of whatever they profess. How can anyone take them seriously ?

          • Juan Carlos says:

            And you chant with the same mouth you use to call others “moronic”?

      • glenn says:

        The Russians had photo’s of moon Craters “identical” to the NASA photo’s. The were discovered in Area 51 in Nevada. Enough said, not to mention murdering the possible “whistle blowers” astronauts…

    • Riley says:

      Umm, then please explain to me how we have put mirrors on the moon since the first trip to the moon that you are all saying did not happen? The mirrors on the moon are used the measure the distance in reference to tidal change, etc. and the data has been kept since then. If we did not land on the moon back then how did we set up these mirrors in the correct spots?

      Food for thought.

      • Gene says:

        There is no question that unmanned flights to the moon are very “easy” or manageable. The problem is with “manned flight” to the moon. No one has been able to do it since. Not even the US. All of the man-made equipment on the moon can be easily brought there, just not by man. At least that is my understanding of the explanation for the items that may be on the moon…

        • Steve says:

          Is it that no one has “been able”?…or that no one has been willing to pony up the expense and resources? We need to be very careful here….you can’t just BELIEVE “no one has been able” without proof of that. Ability and willingness are two different things.

          • George Bush was ready to go back to the moon and was prepared to provide NASA the funds for this but NASA said “Sorry we can’t go to the moon now…”

            So you are writing nonsense here. NASA was offered the funds but could not deliver the goods. Now NASA has nothing except their unmanned ‘space plane’. That only has a cargo space about the size of the back of a pick-up truck. It is just like a drone that also can only fly in earth orbit… NASA has no ability for manned space flight at all… They can not do it now… No one can do it now. Man on the moon…. And they could not do it in the 60′s either…..

      • Ron Expeth says:

        You may feel quite smug coming up with this little gem, as if nobody else has ever thought of it, but unfortunately this has been satisfactorily explained, as have all other “But what about..” If you examine the evidence with an open mind you will see that the entire manned missions to the Moon were all faked, including the ill-fated Apollo 13. It is very sad news but unfortunately it is true. Why is it so important to raise the issue? The problem with letting it go is that the US government is now so adept at lying to its population that its deceptions can only become more and more abhorrent – like 9/11, the murder of 3000 of its own people to promote a phony war. This has to stop. It is up to all of us throughout the world who value life to open our eyes and demand the truth.

        • David says:

          You still didn’t answer how the mirrors got there. Stop lying and changing the subject.

          • There is no real proof that the mirrors are there. The experiment is not conclusive and does not really prove that mirrors are on the moon… I have explained this before and have spent quite a lot of time at the only observatory (in Texas) who do this experiment (Luna lazer Ranging) every night and they can go for weeks or even months without being able to get any returns from the so-called mirrors on the moon they are firing their lazer at. Then suddenly, for no apparent reason, it starts working again. And I have spoken to the scientist who was in charge of this same experiment when it was being also done in Australia and he was quite frank and openly told me that even though from Australia we are really in the best position to do this experiment they were never able to conclusively show that the reflectors were on the moon…

            So this experiment is not conclusive. There are so many things. The way they do the experiment in Texas [the official NASA funded site] is rigged. They fire the lazer in pulses every few seconds through a telescope pointed at one of the the so-called retro-reflectors on the moon and they only open up the detector for a tiny fraction of a second exactly when they expect a return from the moon and if they find a bit of green light in that tiny fraction of a second they say they have got a return from the mirror on the moon. But they have no idea actually where that green light comes from… For example if they were to leave the detector open all the time it would be picking up green light all the time… The whole thing is a scam…

            Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

            Madhudvisa dasa

    • full moon says:

      Regarding NASA’s latest pictures from the apollo xx landing sites:

      Up through times the establishment has without exceptions laughed at and ridiculed blurry UFO pictures taken by people who claim to have seen these things. If those UFO’s really exist, why is there never any sharp photo’s of these UFO’s. If these things really exist then give us the detailed photo’s that proves them, says the non-believers?

      Some days ago NASA published a new set of even more blurry moon pictures , claiming them to show the remains of the Apollo 11 lander and even footprints from the moonwalking some 40 years ago.

      This is really sad. NASA is once again doing exactly what those people who claim to show authentic UFO pictures do. They produce awful blurry pictures of something that doesn’t really show anything. One have to imagine what is is. It really could be anything you want it to be.

      Producing these pictures tells me that something fishy is still going on regarding those moonlandings. In fact the suspension is even stronger now. Sorry NASA. Before any hard evidence is given, neither UFO’s or moonlandings are real.

      • Okay, you ask for hard evidence. You have thousands of hrs. of video tapes, tens of thousands of documents, thousands of pictures, satellite photos from the LOR, no other space agency denying that it ever happened (especially USSR), moon rocks that thousands of scientists and physicists have poured over these rocks and not one, NOT ONE, has ever said they are faked. Heck, if you got an even sharper image of the sites you would say they were faked, if more astronauts go back and take videos and pictures of the sites you would say they were faked, the only way you will believe it is if you go yourself. So, save up several billion, have someone build you a rocket, and off you go.

        • Ice Cruel says:

          I understand your frustration and the logic in the answer you have given although if you opened your mind and questioned what you see in front of you im sure you would understand why the MOON-HOAX exists. In a time where computers were the size of garages, Colour TV’s the size of a cardboard board with a resolution of a snowy day. Motor vehicles coming into play with 4 whole gears and a 0.014% chance of a man being able to not only land on the moon but also record the whole thing and come back to earth with cameras and video recorders that have less quality than a VGA camera phone. The amount of time it takes to plan and develop a video game takes 2 – 4 years with todays technology but the Americans managed to not only do it but managed to do it repeatidly for a whole presidentship and we havent done it since. We are human whenever we design something we then improve it and improve and keep trying until we cant develop it any more from LP’s to tapes to Cds to MP3s, from cars topping 30mph to cars breaking 200mph with an economy of 35mpg, to creating a pc the size of a room to an ipad which has more technology in it than the reocket of the 60′s. If we went to the moon 50 years ago we would have a mcdonalds on there right now. Think about evolution and apply the same logic.

          • R Maganti says:

            What about Concorde? Air travel between London on NY takes 8 hours instead of the 4 hours that was possible with Concorde in the 80s, 90s and 2000s. That is evolution in reverse for you.

    • Colin Shaw says:

      I have to agree it all looks suspicious. I ask if it really happened then why doesn’t NASA use Hubble to view Tranquility Base and show the equipment AND FLAG to the world. Surely if everything was there they would have used Hubble to prove it by now….

      • bobby says:

        according to NASA the hubble cannot focus on anything that close to the earth

        • Galileo Galilei says:

          No, not that it cannot focus on anything so close, just that it does not have the requisite quality of optics. Google exists, so please look it up.

          Thinking is necessary. Knowledge is acquirable, opinions are not study.

          • mangotango says:

            Psalm 121:6

            “The sun shall not smite thee by day nor the moon by night”

            Pretty well settles it for me..I don’t believe anyone has walked on the moon…

          • Sanity says:

            All of those who believe a human being has never been on the moon are all insane. If all of you believe , truly believe then just go kick down aldrins door and tell him you know the truth. what would faking a moon landing do> what would that achieve. obviously nothing if we are still this retarted as a species. Landing on the moon was an achievment for all of “mankind” not for america. Its sad that if i were to pack a rocket with 100 tons of fuel and fly to the moon and come back to earth to tell all of mankind that it is possible to leave this planet and return safely that no one would believe me but infact try to dis-believe all of it. We are capable of endless possiblities that even are own minds have trouble accepting>It is time to wake up from our slumber we are not part of a “counrty” , nor a “world”, not even a “galaxy”, we are all part of a universe! am i the only one on this planet who sees us as a universe? dont you see we are part of these endless possibilities> we are floating in the dark and yet illuminated by a seemingly endless glow from our closest sun. perhaps this sun is here for us to see clearly without void. what good is all that light, if we are all still blind.

          • Ryan says:

            @ sanity. man either you and your hippy parents been smoking some good &#!t or they dropped you on your head alot. with all your deluded bs going on where’s your higher power to take those blinders from your eyes and wax out of your ears. you’re almost donkey like. dont be a stubborn fool and be easily deceived by the lies you are telling yourself. wake up and welcome to 2011. i don’t go to church every sunday but my God told different family members and me for 30 years now NASA and their bs moon crap is indeed a big lie, enough said.

          • Patrick says:

            Accordindg to the story I heard, Russians were just behind Americans when they travel to the moon. And one American just needed the team to get onto the moon in any way they can be just to get that “title!” wtf is that. That Americans are the first one who got onto the moon! And so, Russian team were pointless in going to. Accdg to the story I heard, it really is impossible to be on the moon. Really is..

          • Ish says:

            Oh. In that case mr. (fake) Galileo Galilei, you must know that study is not knowledge. Knowledge includes much more than study and opinions.

            And Moon-hoax surely exists.

  2. Suren says:

    National Geographic has gone to such great pain to justify that it did take place.Why?

    When interviewd, Buzz Aldrin looked snappy in a tailored suit and was very composed, perhaps too composed!!

    My point is that in current times, we have telescopes that can pick up fine details on the moon. No avid skywatcher has come up and said “Hey, theres the baseball card left by the last astronauts, or the flag,or any other paraphernalia??”

    • STMan says:

      The best telescope on earth can resolve about .02 arc seconds, The lunar lander (the largest man made object on the moon)from earth would only be about .003 arc seconds, meaning it is way too small to see from earth with the best telescope and even hubble.

      • Russ Hawkins says:

        How convenient…. I am astonished that the Hubble Telescope cannot get a decent resolution on the lunar lander etc. However the USA did very well out of the “Landings” due to international investment in US industry…. Where did the money go? 40 Billion was a fortune, who pocketed that? Where will the TRILLIONS go on missions to Mars?

        You have to admit this is great entertainment! If they want to spend money, spend it on a feasible Asteroid Defence System – it’s the only sane course of action…. but then again humanity proves it is mentally dysfunctional regularly. Saving our planet, society and fellow creatures seems to take poor second place when someone can make a percentage out of some con. I guess our leaders, industry chiefs and money men will only invest in what they can make the most money from for themselves…

        The last asteroid to come close to Our Planet was only spotted after it had passed between the Earth and the Moon. It’s not if but when we get battered. Then all the leaders, industry chiefs and money men will be left with is… nothing. Asteroids can make all their games, crimes, circus’s of war and selfishness irrelevant. Yet they seem too stupid to even protect their investments and their own families asses. The proof humanity is relatively mindless is the fact that we are seeing so little investment in a dedicated space defence systems – now that we KNOW what is out there. Survival is the only sane cause. If we save this world from one Total Extinction Event then we will have saved every species on Earth that we haven’t yet murdered through our vile greed; and that’s got to be good for our standing with the Prime Mover (known as God to some) – and let’s face it, we need all the help we can get in that department.

        So if we throw 100 – 500 trillion dollars at this little project and power industry with Gyromill power instead of Nuclear Stupidity we can survive. We can do Mars later for real… However I guess more money can be made in the short term with special effects and trickery…

        • wise guy says:

          I’m not sure if you know this, but the Hubble Telescope is not powerful enough to view tiny objects like the lunar lander on the moon. All the fancy images that you can see that were taken with the Hubble are larger than you can imagine.

        • Mark Johnson says:

          Remember, everything that we as a nation do for our space exploration is done by one and only organization – NASA and there is none other. Therefore, NASA and those who cold-heartedly believe in their government’s programs without commonsense will twist the facts and the truth to fit their view and mentality. That’s what is happening with NASA’s fake moon landing. Anytime, when people with commonsense throw an idea at NASA, they come up with some stupid reason to go against their commonsense.

          As a simple test, I would like for everyone reading my response to go to Google Map and search for your house or apartment or your place of residence and zoom in as close as possible on the satellite image. What do you see may I ask? Well, do you want to know what I see on my Google Map? I see my house with orange roof top, my apple tree in my backyard, my front yard with fences, my black tar driveway, my pickup truck parked at the end of my driveway. Heck, I even see my son’s red toy car left in our backyard.

          As a reminder to those who think they got everything figured with Hubble telescope, these Google Map satellite images were taken as far as 22,000 miles above our Earth’s surface from outer space by a satellite. Let’s see. Moon is only about 430,000 miles from Earth and Google was able to take very close satellite images from space of Earth’s surface. It only goes to show that Hubble telescope should be able to take 100 times high resolution pictures of our moon’s surface and definitely be able to see the lunar modules still siting on the moon, if we did land on the moon.

          I have a $1,000 telescope and I can take pictures of our moon’s creators very very close and crisp clear. By the way, I did painstakingly search the moon with my telescope and used the highest lens power to get as close as possible. So, far nothing came up yet not even remotely. If I can do that with my cheap $1,000 telescope, surely million dollar Hubble telescope should easily be able to get very very close and crisp clear images of our moon’s surface. Supporters of NASA’s fake moon landings also give this stupid reasons too – Mylar reflection. Oh and there is no Mylar reflection on Earth when they took the Google Map satellite images. Give me a break. Mylar reflection and arc are all terms souped up by rednecks and idiots with no high school diploma or commonsense, because they believe in their government cold-heartedly even if they are wrong.

          OKAY, smart guy. Let’s just say I don’t know nothing about Hubble telescope and I am an village idiot, who only completed up to 5th grade. (LOL). Let me ask you this. If NASA can send not one but two rovers in 6 to 7 months to Mars (54 million miles from Earth), why can’t NASA send at least one rover in 3 days to our moon (430,000 miles from Earth). We don’t need to rely on NASA’s stupid orbiter’s definitive proofs images, which is totally laughable. Once the rover lands on the moon’s surface, we can get highest resolution images up and close too. Come on, smart people. Answer me. Why is NASA avoiding this option? Remember, they are spending our money in billions of dollar to accomplish their lies.

          By the way, I have P.H.D in Physics and Doctorate in Astronomy and I am not an village idiot LOL.

          • STMan says:

            The best resolution of the satellites used by google earth is about .5m (1.6ft.) which have an orbital altitude of about 200 miles, not 22,000. Satellites at that height (geosynchronous orbit) are used for wide angle images of the earth, such as for weather. Any satellites that get close up high resolution images of the earth’s surface such as spy satellites or land sat, are in low earth orbit, not geosynchronous. Therefore we must compare the distance of 200 miles for images of earth’s surface with the 240,000 mile distance from hubble to the moon, which would make it 1200 times as far. At that distance hubble’s resolution as well as any gound based telescope cannot resolve the LM on the moon.

            As far as why NASA doesn’t NASA send a rover to the moon. Why send an unmanned rover to the moon if they already had 12 men who walked on the moon and returned samples. Yes they could do it, but would that be a useful way to spend part of NASA’s buget?

          • the voice of reason says:

            You have a doctorate in Astronomy but you don’t know much about Hubble?!?!?! I think you might be a hoax. In your efforts to get your doctorate in Astronomy did you ever hear of a man named George Carruthers or the lunar observatory equipment he designed for Apollo 16? Did you ever see the UV pictures that were taken with said equipment during the Apollo 16 mission?

            If anyone including NASA sent rovers to the moon to take photos of Apollo artifacts left on the moon, do you really think that would convince the hoax believers? Prominent hoax theorist Marcus Allen has stated that no photos of said Apollo artifacts would convince him of the landings. I think most hoax theorists would react similarly. Many cannot admit they are wrong and some have too much income to lose if they admit the truth. And the truth is between 1969 and 1972, 12 men landed on the moon and returned to earth with geologic samples and photographic evidence that has been confirmed by far more people that doubt the events.

          • bobby says:

            btw he is an undergrad in Minnesota no PhD yet and I guess he missed the fact that a PhD is a Doctorate

            his email is joh04684 @ umn.edu

          • Geoff Boxer says:

            You are so right. But just consider this: Did you watch the latest launch and see the huge power needed to blast off. Something like a huge 15 story building and yet the small rocket probe that the astronauts are in, detaches itself, lands the right way up on the moon and then calmly takes off when it’s ready – Give me a break!

          • KH says:

            Do you seriously think that it takes the same amount of energy to blast off from the moon? The moon’s gravity is a fraction of the earth’s gravity. Think!

          • Geoff Boxer says:

            The gravity on the Moon is about 1/6th that of Earth. To achieve the huge acceleration needed to blast off from the Moon a huge amount of energy is still needed. But apart from that, just imagine the probe, landing slowly and carefully the correct way up. They lower a ladder, walk out onto the lunar surface, play around for a while, get some pictures and climb back ready to blast off and journey back to Earth. No hitches, clear reception (black and white. I thought they had colour in 1969?) and this is over 40 years ago – Incredible. Look at the pictures of the astonauts walking around. You can practically see they are on wires. Anyway that’s all I’m saying on the subject. You’ll be saying Oswald killed Kennedy and it was just a coincidence that he was, in turn, killed by Ruby, dying of cancer and Bobby Kennedy was shot by some random shooter. Am I a conspiracy theory nut or do I see things laterally? And don’t get me started on Diana or Irak. Have a nice life. Good talking to you. Better get on with something important.

          • Hare Krishna Geoff

            Nice post. Of course you would still need a lot of power to get off the moon. I also find it amazing that they could broadcast live television from the surface of the moon a quarter of a million miles away [according to them] in the 60′s. I do not know if you know but in the 60′s to broadcast live television from anywhere on earth to another place even only a mile or two away you needed to have a huge truck full of equipment and big powerful transmitters… Yet they have no problem at all to do a live broadcast from the moon. In the 60′s???

            The whole thing is such a complex operation. Flying to the moon with their multi-stage rocket is complex and very dangerous. Then they put that thing in orbit around the moon and leave it orbiting the moon and get in their lunar lander and fly down to the moon for their little adventure in their little spaceship that has walls as thick as a few layers of aluminum foil… And then it just floats back up to the mother ship and they dock with it and get on-board and fly back home… This is just too complex. And they made it look so easy. And still no one can dream of doing anything like this even now 45 years later when the technology is 1000 times better…

            The whole thing is completely crazy. No sane person could believe this fairy tale.

          • Irony says:

            A PhD in physics and a Doctorate in Astronomy should have made it incredibly clear to you that the atmospheric effects alone are enough to keep you from resolving images tight enough to capture such minute detail on the moon. I believe you are a fraud. You would also know that a thousand-dollar telescope is middle-of-the-road budget for a pre-made unit. Go to a star party and check out someone’s f9 reflector, and then posit your ridiculous assertions to them. I hope you actually listen to the tirade that ensues.

          • Very well said!!!! it doesnt take a smart person to pint point the things that just doeesnt make sense at all. I am new to this thing and i have read article which caught my mind with things that even got me curious. I am not a high school graduate but i understand why people believe no one went to the moon. I believe it as well especially when i learned that the sun throws thousands of solar flares that no human can support and that the auras tha appears on the sky are due to those radiations and damage all type of ELECTRONICS as well

          • tc says:

            to Mr: “By the way, I have P.H.D in Physics and Doctorate in Astronomy and I am not an village idiot LOL.”
            You should have worked an english or literacy class in there as well. The term is “whole-heartedly not cold-heartedly”
            “they believe in their government cold-heartedly ”
            Don’t mean to pick. Just saying

          • nek54 says:

            @Mark Johnson .” Okay smart guy ” if your so sure the moon landings were a hoax, what makes you think that there were any rovers sent to mars ? If you think the pictures from the moon are fake , what makes you think the pictures from mars are not ? Your view on the two events seem to contradict each other . Until you can conclusively prove one or the other you should respect others opinions without criticism .

          • We can not say if there are any rovers on Mars or not. We have exactly the same problem as the moon. There is no proof of this at all. So it is quite possible that the Mars rovers are roving around some Mars set somewhere. Who knows? The only thing we have on these issues is the word of NASA and if NASA are lying then the Mars rovers may not be on Mars at all.

            So we can not take these things very seriously at all…

            Let them do something practical. We have been waiting for that for a very long time…

  3. Noom says:

    How to land SAFELY?
    How to survive in a spacesuit with a backpack that has to regulate body temperature in an outside environment of 200 degrees F in the sunlight and -200 degrees F in the shade?

    I am not convinced that those two technologies were available then let alone now. When we landed an orbiter on the surface of Mars it crash landed with balloons around to take in the blows.

    The backpack of the astronauts should be examined. Where would the heat buildup from the astronauts body go if there is no air heat exchange (atmosphere) on the surface of the Moon?

    • STMan says:

      Since they are in a near vacuum the temperature differential will not affect them. A vacuum is the best insulator (ie: thermos bottle). The suit was white to reflect the heat of the sun and there was liquid coolant cirulating in their suit to keep them at the proper temperature. Not that high teck. Also why is this only raised about the moon landings, and not the orbital flights where there was a space walk – Ed White, Gordon Cooper, Russian cosmonauts, and shuttle flights, also would experience the same effects of hot and cold in low Earth orbit.

      • Kneel says:

        In low Earth orbit, there is no white surface to reflect the heat of the Sun.

  4. sarah says:

    I dont think that he really walked on the moon i think its a big hoax!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Crotte says:

      Very persuasive argument !!!!! Good Job

      • Ramlijay says:

        Question. is there other reliable space agencies that validate all these landings.

    • Jérôme Leduc says:

      Then how can you explain that we were able to calculate the distance between moon and earth BECAUSE of installed reflective mirror? If the man never walk on the moon, how have we put those mirrors there?

      • T. Thatcher says:

        How did we put mirrors on the moon? Are you people stupid? How did we put rovers on Mars that will go anywhere we want them to and take soil samples, or lay down mirrors if we want them to. You really needed to have this pointed out for you? My god you’re dumb. No wonder you still buy into this hoax.

        • Hello.

          There are supposed to be about four of these reflectors, I think 3 are supposed to be put there by the Apollo missions. But one is supposed to be put there by an unmanned Russian mission. So even according to their own information the reflectors can be put there by unmanned missions. So even if there are reflectors it does not prove that man has walked on the moon.

          And it is by no means a proven fact that there are reflectors on the moon placed by us. I have discussed this at great length in other places in this thread and you can find it there.

          People make it seem like it is a simple thing to fire a laser at a reflector 1/4 of a million miles away and get a reflection back that you can detect. In fact this is almost impossible to do. Even if you have the best equipment. There is only one place in the world doing this experiment on an almost daily basis and they can go for weeks or months without being able to get any significant reflections from the so-called reflectors on the moon. And the way the experiment is designed there could be many other explanations for the so-called reflections from the moon. This experiment is by no means conclusive. It does not prove that we have reflectors on the moon put there either by manned or unmanned missions.

      • atom bomb says:

        Wow, thats really using your head. If we needed the mirrors to calculate the distance of the moon from earth, how did we calculate the distance to begin with???!?!? I’m no atro-phisicist or Phd in anything…. Yet! but I am pretty sure we would need to know the distance of the moon from earth in order to fly there, ya? So, anyway, your argument makes no sense to me, as you say we needed the supposed mirrors in order to calculate the distance we needed to know in the first place in order to place the said mirrors to begin with… Common sense????

  5. Rob says:

    The point about conspiracy theories is that’s all they are, theories. Anyone can start one and there is always someone who will believe it and if there is any aspect of the theory that does not fit then ignore it. Considering there was the space race with the USSR going on at the time do you not think they would found out about the hoax through their intelligence network? Think of the amount of people who would have to be involved to set up a fake and to keep it secret, how would you be able to keep all those people quiet for all these years?
    It was no fake, it was real. Like it or not, but US astronauts landed on the moon in 1969.

    • Hare Krishna Rob. As far as the moon mission it is not a conspiracy theory. There is simply no evidence that they went to the moon at all. And the biggest evidence is that supposadly they had all these successful manned missions to the moon in the 60′s with very ancient technology compared to what we have today. And now, George Bush asked NASA to go to the moon again, and they say they can’t do it. They are saying maybe with a trillion dollars of funding or more perhaps they will be able to send a manned mission to the moon in 25 years time? So it does not take a genius to work out if NASA had perfectly good technology to successfully put men on the moon and bring them back in the 60′s that technology would have evolved and developed and would have been perfected by now.

      But now NASA tell us “we can’t go to the moon without trillions of dollars of funding at 25 years to develop a new space ship?” So this is the reason. There is no evidence we ever went to the moon, plus we never went again and we can’t go now, plus we have never done anything on the moon that can be observed from Earth, which, if one did go to the moon would be the logical thing to do if you wanted to convince people you were there.

      There would not have been so many people involved in such a hoax. Most working on the project would have believed it to be true. And it is a military secret, national security issue, so anyone not keeping the secret will be very severely dealt with. So if you know if you don’t keep the secret you will be killed or your family members will be killed, you keep the secret. The thing is if they really went to the moon they would be able to go now and if they want to clear the doubt then they can go there and do something that can be seen from Earth with a reasonable sized telescope.

      • STMan says:

        The reason that they can’t go to the moon now is that they stopped building Saturn V rockets, which was the only vehicle which could lift a big enough payload into orbit, and instead built the space shuttle which only can reach low earth orbit. After 6 successful landings it was decided that no more money would be spent for more flights. The fact that no flights are currently being done now doesn’t mean that it was never done. Look at the concord supersonic jet for example, built in the 60′s. Now there is no supersonic passanger jet. Does that mean that there never was because there isn’t one now. The reason is that it was not cost effective to continue, just like the moon landings. They did leave two retro reflectors on the moon (apollo 14 & 15), which when a bright enough laser is pointed at it, the reflection can be seen with a big enough telescope. No telescope is powerful enough to see any of the man made objects left on the moon including hubble, because of the distance, however the Clementine lunar probe did take a picture showing the shadow of one of the decent stages of the lunar lander which was left on the moon.

        • Fredo says:

          The engineer behind the Saturn V rockets said that for the payload 3 rockets the size of the empire state building would’ve been required…

          I don’t see how the Saturn V could’ve done it.

        • Sunny says:

          If the blueprint for the technology still exists.. why would it be that we can’t replicate that same ship? just because you have stopped production in a ship doesn’t mean you can’t start it back up. and with the man power and technology of today we can probably build it quicker and perhaps even better than the 60′s.

          • Lohocla says:

            Sunny,

            Progress moves forward not backwards….blueprints are cool and all, but to what purpose would rebuilding serve?

            Would be like building an XT computer (for those that remember, that was one of the first PC’s release, 33mhz (not ghz) speed, 128k (not MB) of memory)….just because we can, doesn’t mean its worth it to do so.

            In a society who’s religion is God Money, makes no sense because wasting money (at least, the appearance of doing so) is akin to blasphemy. Just ain’t gonna happen.. I put appearance in there because its kind of like the Catholics…boink little kids in secret while telling the world to be better people….and give us your money.

            Nah, doesn’t make much sense honestly.

            I mean, in the 60′s we had a purpose for going to the moon (silly as it may seem now), what purpose is there now? I don’t think we’ll be back to the moon until there’s a good reason money wise, to do so…just isn’t one now.

            Loho

          • Ron Expeth says:

            In answer to that very question NASA says the blueprints of the Saturn V were lost so they would have to start all over again if they had to go back to the moon. Hmmm?

    • T. Thatcher says:

      First – why did the people working the gas pumps (metaphorically) have to be informed if this was a hoax. Need to know people were probably less than a hundred dedicated American patriots and/or professional intelligence agents who believed we needed the propaganda victory in our cold war against the Soviets.
      Second – Why didn’t the Russians say anything? They did. Both major Russian newspapers reported it as a hoax. The question now becomes why didn’t the American press report that the Russians were claiming it was a hoax?
      Third – If we could send twelve men to the moon in the sixties using computers with less power than a Commodore 64 computer, why is it predicted now we will need a decade of research before we can go back?
      My God you people are gullible. You will believe anything the govt tells you, yes? Remember it was the same head of govt then who said “I am not a crook”. Did you believe Nixon was telling the truth about that. His govt lied about watergate, about Vietnam, about CIA experiments on civilians, but they wouldn’t lie about the moon landing. Oh no! Heaven forbid! Of course not.

      • Zoot says:

        I think the main reason they want that long is because there is a greater aversion to loss of life by todays standards. Once upon a time you actually had an accepted view that a certain number of people would die building a particular skyscraper and everyone thought that was acceptable. It really isn’t anymore.
        Likewise, yes they got to the moon, but how many attempts did it take? How much trial and error in constructing these things? Likely they would spend much more time modelling the missions to do it right.
        Also there isn’t much difference in the budgets, despite the disparities of about 1000 orders of magnitude. This is summed up in the depreciation in value of currency which is constantly occuring.

        As for the original landings I’m a fence sitter.

        • Hi Zoot!

          Please accept my humble obeisances AND my apology for being such a Johhny-Come-Lately on this post and consequently replying to you.

          I must disagree with your statement about aversion to loss of life becoming a standard with passage of time since the 60′s. Witness computer games such as ‘Grand Theft Auto’, and let’s not forget ‘Dungeons & Dragons’. And how may we EVER forget George Bush Senior’s “famous” statement about “collateral damage” when referring to human beings losing their lives in a war–an unjust war at that. I think the word aversion needs to be replaced with the word indifference–and practically speaking we’re able to witness this actually happening. Being a guy in my late 60′s FROM the 60′s I may tell you in all honesty that the young people of today hardly exude the compassion of yesteryear. What I see is a bunch of spoiled, self-indulgent and whiney yuppies who couldn’t care less who’s starving or who’s dying so long as they’re able to get their bottle of 10-year old Merlot’ & their Lexus.

          Witness Roe vs Wade. Since that Supreme Court decision, some 34 million babies have been cruelly put to death in the womb by well-paid hit-men calling themselves doctors. 34 million! That’s almost 6 times as many human beings who were murdered in The Holocaust. And I’m sure the 34 million number has vastly increased.

          The point is that life is losing its sacredness, that idea is being slowly taught to young people–and you better believe it’s a well-laid plan; so I don’t see aversion entering the picture here, quite the opposite is taking place.

          Did they go/didn’t they go to the moon…my thinking is that they probably did not. And even from a material point of view: if they did in fact go to the moon or some celestial body, what in heaven’s name was their going supposed to have accomplished…other than we taxpayers who funded this light-show becoming brainwashed & enthused that, yes, they’ll do even greater things!

          • young lady says:

            Hi Bhakta raj prabhu
            I just wanted to say something about your comment up above and I quote
            “bunch of spoiled, self-indulgent and whiney yuppies”
            First I’m not exactly sure what a “whiney yuppies” is suppose to mean. But I’m not spoiled or self-indulgent. I’m a 17 year old girl and according to you I don’t care about the world. I just want to let you know that I wake up every saturday morning at 7o’clock to pass out water pitchers at a nursing home at 8o’clock in the morning and I do that until 10o’clock. Why do I do that? Because I like to volunteer in the community. So even though you think young people are “spoiled” and don’t care about the world, let me be the first to tell you that you are dead wrong.

  6. Art says:

    If americans had the technology to land humans on moon in 60s.Till now they would be far superior side to launch man even on mars or anyother planets.But that is all bogus created by us.They wanted 2 go ahead from u.S.S.R ,it was a spacerace between them.Their is no strong evidence that they landed on moon.First they should clear all doubts regarding that mission,which they will never.

    • STMan says:

      Actually there is a lot of evidence that they went to the moon. Twenty four different men flew around the moon and returned to earth including twelve who landed. They took hours of movie film, thousands of high resolution pictures with haselblad cameras, as well as bringing back moon dust and rocks. Not to mention pictures of the earth with changing cloud patterns taken from the moon and in orbit around the moon. If that isn’t evindence then what is?

      • Madhusudana Dasa says:

        It is this so-called “evidence” which is the crux of the hoax.
        As it fails to withstand scrutiny.

        David Percy is an award winning television and film producer, a professional photographer and also a member of the Royal Photographic Society. He is co-author, along with Mary Bennett, of the fascinating book ‘Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers’ (ISBN 1-898541-10-8). He also made a film/documentary ‘What Happened on the Moon?’, a film that also features Mary Bennett and one which I strongly recommend if you have an interest in the Apollo missions. Percy firmly believes that the Apollo footage was either faked or not the original film that was shot on the Moon. He believes that many anomalous features that would alert the eagle eyed viewer, could have been placed in the films by whistle blowers who were deeply dissatisfied to be a part of the cover-up. He has studied the entire transfer of the original film on video tape, a feat that not many people have done.

        What many people did not realize at the time was that a lot of the footage was actually pre-recorded and not live at all.
        (Possibly done by Stanley Kubrick!)

        • Clavius says:

          David Percy grossly overestimates his credentials.

          Yes, he is a member of RPS, but that is open to amateurs and may be granted, for example, solely on the basis of artistic merit and not technical skill.

          The only award David Percy lists is fourth runner-up to a BAFTA award. No other evidence of awards has been presented. One of Percy’s resumes lists him as the producer of the BBC “Mind Mapping” set of videos, but the official credits from BBC list no “David Percy” among any of the participants.

          Percy claims to be a professional photographer, but no evidence of any professional work has been presented. In fact, many professional photographers whose credentials are NOT debatable have called Percy’s work and conclusions into question.

          Percy has absolutely no training or experience in the science of photographic interpretation and analysis, which is a separate field from photography. Percy’s methods by which he has examined the Apollo photographs are simply made-up and bear no resemblance to how photo analysts actually work.

          I on the other hand have formal training and experience in the science of photographic interpretation. My work has been published in the prestigious journal “Science” and I have appeared on National Geographic and on UK Channel 4, as well as on the TV program “Mythbusters.” I have attempted at several occasions to quiz Percy on his techniques and conclusions, but he always avoids it. He has declined two separate invitations to defend his findings against my comments on international television.

          Nor has this “professional photographer” managed to duplicate the Apollo photographs in his studio, using the methods he theorizes were used to fake the photos. He merely provides diagrams or rough descriptions — no detail or rigor.

          Percy has NOT studied all the Apollo video, as he claims. He has been caught on two separate occasions claiming the video suspiciously did not contain certain things (e.g., astronauts jumping great heights), when legitimate Apollo historians can find such examples in just minutes.

          David Percy’s only prior publication is a science fiction novel. Mary Bennett is neither a scientist nor a photo analyst: she is a self-proclaimed psychic. Yet these uneducated, unqualified people managed to find something all the world’s finest experts seem to have missed!

          He will not answer questions submitted either in writing or verbally. What does David Percy have to hide? Perhaps his own charlatanism?

          The claim that Stanley Kubrick faked the video comes from an old joke that circulated on the Internet in the 1990s. The hoax believers simply take it seriously.

  7. Karl Roberts says:

    NO DUST WAS BLOWN UP WHEN THEY LANDED …………..

    • STMan says:

      On all of the landing films that I have seen there is a lot of dust until the engines are turned off. Because there is no atmosphere, once the engine is turned off the dust falls back to the surface, unlike on earth where dust would stay suspended in the air for quite some time.

  8. Bob says:

    GUYS!!!! ofc there should not be a dust blown up cuz there is no atmosphere condition on the Moon!!! The golf ball can go right but remember the 1/6 gravity! The backpack have a cooling units in it, remember?? The suits and the spacecrafts have a special insulation that protect them from the solar flares and radiations! The stars don’t appeared in the pics cuz the ground is so bright, just like when you are in downtown, full of lights and you can’t see stars, same thing doh! the landing craft don’t get deep like the astronaut shoes because the fine dust is just few inches deep but under that, there are very solid, dense, very tight-packed ground that caused by numerous vibrated of the micrometeorites!! I have so much to tell you but have little time so tell me if u got a question!!! Last thing, IT IS REAL!!!! Get over it!!!!

    • Hoax Man says:

      Answer this question
      One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

      Leaving the first man on Earth not Neil armstrong?

      • wise guy says:

        Not who, but what took the shot of Armstrong stepping onto the moon.

        The answer? A camera deployed from the LEM and was remotely adjusted to point towards the ladder.

  9. Sun says:

    this is just the beginning…first they faked the landing on moon, then they’ll fake the landing on mars and it will continue like a never ending cycle. Besides…whats NASA’s excuse for all this? why aren’t they defending themselves??????

    • Solo Lupus says:

      Yes, that film was called “Capricorn One”, and starred O.J. Simpson (former professional American Footballer, turned (alleged) murderer of his ex and her partner).

      As for Stanley Kubrik faking the moon landings for NASA, here’s the film :

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0344160/

      As you can see, it’s a French Mockumentary hi-lighting how easily people delude themselves into believing everything they think they see on TV.

      I found especially hilarious the out-takes clips at the end : “Can I see that script again?”

  10. mary says:

    you people are all idiots. We did land on the moon!! You are just senile old people with no life that have nothing better to do.! And you Ralph Rene you and your friend Bill kaysing should go live in a cat sanctuary.

    • trevor says:

      man has neva been on the moon its too far away and if they have been there why since 1969 they hav never been back to repeat this great event if it eva happened at all

      • tom-boy says:

        And we should listen to a guy who can’t write a sentence because?

    • Geoff Boxer says:

      Mary, I know your comment is over 2 years old, but I have just come across it. Can you explain your reasons, why you think the moon landing was not a hoax, without using childish abusive rhetoric. You sound like our present Australian prime minister

  11. Curious says:

    It seems we are still fighting for past instead of making future glorious. Whether man landed on moon or not is less significant than where we are heading.

    Bura dekhan main chalaa bura na milyo koyi!! aapan dil mein khojiya mujhse bura na koi!!

    Translation: I went in search of most wrong doers (bad people) in world and after searching my sould couldn’t find anyone bad then me

  12. MoonWalker says:

    man never walked on the moon. the best evidence are and were the astronots… i mean astronauts. however, due to fear on their family’s lives and theirs, they can never disclose the truth. those who were about to were killed.

  13. skye says:

    everyone has the right to their own opinion on this . mary you cannot call people idiots for having their opinion, you could not bet you or your family’s life on the subject because none of us no for sure (because we are not the astronauts in question) if the event happened or not, i was 50/50 on the subject but the more i read on both sides the more doubt sets in.

  14. Martin says:

    I have no knowledge of space travel or science or anything of the sort. I´m just a ordinary rational person and my genuine belief is that the original moon landing was a hoax. I think having read a large number of articles from various different sources of varying credibility the only logical conclusion is that it was staged. There are too many factual inconsistencies that just don’t make sense that seem to contravene established and agreed upon scientific fact.
    The circumstantial evidence of the space race and subsequent failures of NASA to launch rockets with technology supposedly far more advanced would seem to support the so-called conspiracy theory.

    • Jon says:

      If you have no knowledge of space travel or science or anything of the sort how can you possibly claim to come to the only logical conclusion?

      How do you decide what is a factual inconsistency with no knowledge of the subject?

      • T. Thatcher says:

        What knowledge of space travel or science do you need if you spot a sneaker track on the moon? Or studio lights in a poorly trimmed photo. Get over yourself. I do have some knowledge of space and that is why I began asking questions before Armstrong had even started back. I watched the original moon landing. I was a patriotic American. I wanted to be an astronomer when I finished school. Rah rah rah. God bless NASA. I bought into the whole thing.
        Then I saw a meteor pass behind Armstrong’s head.
        A meteor? Burning atmosphere? I knew then without the need to read any pro-hoax site that either:
        A) We were wrong and there is an atmosphere on the moon. OR
        B) The pictures I was watching were not taken on the moon.

        I have no proof of this. Do you know where I can obtain ALL the video of that first landing?
        But I do not need proof if I have no desire to prove it to anyone else. So until it is established there is an atmosphere on the moon I will believe the ‘transmissions from the moon’ were faked. Let the debunkers say and believe what they will.

  15. q12 says:

    Man never walked on the moon.It’s sad to think that in the year 2009 people still believe that they have.It was all political to raise the hopes of the American people.If you actually need prove or a reason to not believe it then ask yourself why Nasa has not been back to the moon since the early 1970′s.If man walked on the moon 30+ years ago the U.S would have already had structures built on it trying to claim it for themselves

    • ScottyBoy says:

      Funding was cut off during the inflation-driven recession of the early 70′s. If it’s expensive to build on Earth today what do you think it would cost up there? By the way, have you ever hear of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967?

  16. mary says:

    stupid stupid people.. your just jealous because you werent one of the great people that landed on the moon. your jelous because they got all of the glory!~
    There is clear evidence that we landed on the moon. Ralph Rene and Bill Kaysing have poisoned your mind… FIGHT ME BACK I DARE YOU!! I will retaliate!! WE landed on the moon.

    • It may be true. But the problem is there is no evidence we landed on the moon. And supposedly they had so many successful manned landings on the moon and now we can no longer go there. Maybe we will be able to go there in 25 years time? And so many of the photos are obviously bogus. I mean really, if you think we went to the moon present some evidence that we went to the moon…

      • STMan says:

        Once again, we have more people claiming that there was not evidence that they landed on the moon. So in a court case what would be evidence? Answer: Witnesses, photos, video, film, physical objects from scene. With the moon landings, there is all of these. There is thousands of high resolution 70mm still photos shot from the surface and from orbit around the moon. Go to http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html Spend several hours downloading the high resolution photos of them. Then ask yourself are all of them fake. Remember if they didn’t go then all of them have to be fake. Next watch the Discovery Channel’s “When We Left Earth” Documentary about The NASA Missions, including the moon landings. One of the best documentaries on the subject, with lots of interviews from the actual apollo astronauts who went to the moon. This would be evidence from witnesses (people who were actually there. Doesn’t look like they are lying to me. Why would they after 40 years. Do you really think their lives would still be in danger. (What nonsense).
        Another thing is that people claim it was faked in a studio. But the forget that it was broadcast “LIVE” on TV, with the astronauts communicating with the ground controllers and doing what they were being told to do, such as which rocks to pick up, where to go with the lunar rover next. There was also live TV of the astronauts weightless on the way to and from the moon.
        There is also 16mm movie film which was also being shot while the lunar module was decending and landing for all 6 landings. As well as several times while they were walking and driving the lunar rover on the surface. I have one film which shows an astronaut throwing an object, in one sixth gravity, which goes alot further than possible on earth. Another shows one astronaut falling down, and getting back on his feet simply by pushing with his arms, impossible with a space suit or even without on earth.
        So what about physical evidence: They brought back hundreds of pounds of Moon rocks (one of which I have seen personally) and dust, which has been analysed by geologists not only in the U.S.A. but around the world.
        Other evidence is that they were tracked using large parabolic antennas in Britain and Australia, in order that communications could be kept even when the moon was on the other side of the earth. The Soviets also tracked and monitored communications of the landings. If they didn’t go then the Soviets would have let the world know that they didn’t go.
        Remember the fact that there is no longer any moon landings is not evidence against it. We no longer build pyramids, but at one time they did. We no longer have a supersonic passenger jet, but at one time we did. If every year there were still more moon landings, the same people whould be complaining that money is being wasted. This was the reason that they were cancelled after apollo 17. The saturn V went out of production, so no more landings are possible until a replacement is made. There was 3 saturn V’s left. One was used for Sky Lab, one is on display in Houston, and one in Florida at Cape Canaveral.
        Remember hundreds or thousand of people witnessed the launce of these huge rockets as they left the earth.
        So, in summary, there is more evidence than most people realize, if you really look into the facts, and not get caught up in internet conspiracy hoax nonsense, you will come to appreciate what they astronauts did, risking their lives, (especially those on apollo 13), and what a great accomplishment this was.
        So don’t say there is no evidence, unless you mean no evidence for a moon hoax.

        • Madhusudana Dasa says:

          David Percy is an award winning television and film producer, a professional photographer and also a member of the Royal Photographic Society. He claims to have studied all the images you mention and has even made a film and wrote a book which exposes this hoax for what it is.

          In his film he has an expert explain that it is possible that the so-called “LIVE” broadcasts were actually broadcast from earth to the moon and then re-broadcast from the moon back to earth.

          My point is all the footage could easily be faked. As in a court all evidence is subject to scrutiny. Experts like David Percy have done so and their conclusion is decisive that a hoax is being foisted on humanity.

          The Russians are part of the hoax too, the hoaxed the firstman in space. Again I refer you to David Percy’s excellent film on this point.

          Just because huge numbers of people watched the rockets take-off – doesn’t prove that the rockets went to the moon – this shows the desperation of the hoaxers for evidence.

          The moon rock’s – same as the earth rocks. Just another trick.

          As has been mention previously by others, this debate would be pointless if the so-called astranauts had performed some tangible action on the lunar surface which could be verified here on earth by independant observers. Some have sugested that magnesium flares would have been observed here on earth. The failure of NASA to convince the sceptics by their lack of convincing evidence means that they are forced into a barage of propaganda to divert the minds of the gullable from the actual fact that their tax dollars have been abused.

          All the so-called evidence is all bluff – NO REAL STUFF!

          • STMan says:

            Many photographers, simply don’t understand how the differences in lighting conditions on the moon, affect the photos. They have never taken a photo in bright sunlight with a black sky. Many of the errors deal with believing that the astronauts (in white space suits) should be dark. This has been disproven like all of the other errors, over and over again. Many errors have to do with their belief that shadows should all be parallel. That too I can disprove.

            Read all of the points near the top under “Space oddities”. Those can all be answered, most have been already. If you deleted one everytime it was answered, would there be any left? If so which ones, I can answer any of them for you.

            The more people that you bring into the hoax conspiracy, the less credible your arguments get. Now the Russians are part of the Hoax? That’s a new one that I have never heard. If they faked the first man in space, then I ask you this: Who was the first man in space, wouldn’t it then be an American such as Allan Shephard or John Glen. The Americans should be informed of this great news. Or do you now believe that no one has ever been in space? Please do answer this.

            I really did want to stick to the facts and answering real questions. Debating whether or not people are lying or part of the hoax is going no where. You make a lot of point with no data to back them up. The magnesium flare would prove nothing to those who believe in the hoax theory, since they could say that the flares were put there by an unmanned probe, and set off remotely at the correct time. The photos are by far, better evidence.

            If you want me to analyse a specific apollo photo (or more, I can do that), or other scientific question about the moon landings, I can do that too, rather than debating whether or not more people are part of the hoax. I have nothing to gain by defending NASA if they are lying. If the facts were against them, the apollo story would crumble like a house of cards, and I would help knock it over. But yet it stands.

          • Madhusudana Dasa says:

            “The more people that you bring into the hoax conspiracy, the less credible your arguments get.”

            Sorry, but I am unable to follow your reasoning here. More or less, how does this effect credibility?

            “Now the Russians are part of the Hoax? That’s a new one that I have never heard.”

            I’m no expert on this subject but David Percy is and he gives very plausable explainations for this. If you really haven’t heard this before then this shows your poor fund of knowledge. Perhaps you need to catch up with what he is saying?

            Yes they have been in space, in low orbit.

            “The photos are by far, better evidence.”

            David Percy has shown with assistance from several experts how these photos are fake. Please see his excellent video and learn something.

            So as I said previously since you have no irrefutable evidence depending mainly on photographic illusions it is still a case of all bluff
            without any real stuff.

            But a good try.

          • karl says:

            ||“Now the Russians are part of the Hoax? That’s a new one that I have never heard.”

            I’m no expert on this subject but David Percy is and he gives very plausable explainations for this. If you really haven’t heard this before then this shows your poor fund of knowledge. Perhaps you need to catch up with what he is saying?||

            So why don’t you give a brief summary of his explanation here? Could you document where he offers such an explanation? You can claim he does but that doesn’t make it so. You don’t take NASA’s word for it, why should we take your word that X said Y?

            Further, no one has ever said why anything NASA offers is immediately discounted and not to be trusted. You (or someone else) compared this to a legal trial (doing science and backing a scientific claim and proving guilt in a trial are not highly similar but let’s run with it). In a legal trial, a witness is presumed to be telling the truth until good evidence is offered otherwise. For example, a witness can be shown to be more likely than not to not tell the truth, or is a known liar. So, I’m curious what your evidence is NASA can be so dismissed out of hand?

          • Citizen says:

            I read somewhere that the US sent Russia some 3 ships of food stuff for them to shut their mouth. Russia had very little food supplies back then …

            I am not a scientist or anything … but a man with common sense. Media is under the control of the few wealthy people … what you read in news is what they want you to know. All important world events were planned and conducted by them … People have been brain washed to believe whatever they are told … 99% of our history is wrong … All those who readily believe whatever they are told will always believe … people with common sense will have a high blood pressure …

          • STMan says:

            Not knowing one of his conspircy or hoax theories, hardly shows my poor fund of knowledge. My knowledge is base on years of practical experience with science, photography, computers, etc..

            Since you mentioned him, I had a long look at Percy’s web site, and I have seen most if not all of his arguements before. Most are easily answerable, and many involve the usual missunderstandings of how shadows are not parallel. A few pages of his site deal with astronauts who appear different sizes on different photos, even though it is clear that they are smaller when further from the camera. Other one’s would require a fairly complex answer. I would probably need my own web site with pictures in order to answer them properly, but if you have a specific one you want answered, I could probably do that.

            It if fairly easy to take some photos after sunrise or before sunset, when the shadows are long and compare how the shadows on the apollo photos are similar to those you can take yourself. I have done this, and the shadows follow the same principles whether on earth or on the moon.

            The lighting conditions are more difficult to simulate on earth since we can never have a bright sun with a black sky, but it is fairly easy to understand what would happen under those circumstances, if we know how light is reflected.

    • marvz says:

      ei, stop fooling youre self. for the past 4 decades nasa made us belived that man landed on moon. duhh!! so shut up!!!

  17. Gaurasundar Das says:

    Hare Krishna to all.

    I was 11 years old when I saw the moon landing, and suddenly I began to laugh very strongly and I said: “This is a fake.” And my family said: “But this is the “NASA” and the whole world is watching that.” I said: “Can you believe that three men involved in a small box can not do all that? Today to make a TV transmission in real time requires a big truck.

    • ScottyBoy says:

      Ummm. With A $100 (US) camera attached to a laptop I can televise via internet with the entire world. No truck needed.

      You seem to forget all the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo Earth-orbital missions that took place previous to the landings. They tested all of the in-space technology necessary to reach the moon. As a little boy you never appreciated the building block approach.

  18. Gaurasundar Das says:

    Hare Krishna to all.

    I was 11 years old when I saw the moon landing, and suddenly I began to laugh very strongly and I said: “This is a fake.” And my family said: “But this is the “NASA” and the whole world is watching that.” I said: “Can you believe that three men involved into a small box can do all that? Today a TV transmission in real time requires a big truck.

    • kishore gupta says:

      so u believe it is fake. then do you believe the probes that are on the moon now are fake. or the probes on mars, jupiter, saturn and their moons are fake. and the probe voyager that has nearly left our solar system as fake. remember you shouldnt take scripture so literally. thats what christian creationist do with the bible and thats why they believe the earth is only 6000 years old. i really cant believe that within our faith we have those kinds of people too

      • Hare Krishna Kishore

        The only thing that we actually know the scientists can do for sure is they can put satellites into earth orbit at various heights. The fact that the satellite communications systems and GPS system work is proof of this. But we have no proof of probes going to the moon of mars or jupiter actually. This all goes through one organization, NASA, and they depend on the “success” of these projects like the voyager probe, etc, for their funding. So people have a tendency to cheat. If they know that they will get funding for these things then even if they can not actually do them it would be tempting for them to fake them and get the money rather than standing in the unemployment queues…

        You have to realize people are very dishonest and will do practically anything to get money.

        These faults and imperfections are not in the Vedic literatures. So there you can actually find the perfect knowledge. Of course it is quite different from what the scientists have taught us but the scientists are wrong and the Vedas is correct…

        Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

        Madhudvisa dasa

  19. ashna says:

    hello everyone
    l didnt ever thought this cud be false
    now l really doubt this cud b real
    everything science discovered is FALSE
    only God is true

  20. Lugzme says:

    hmm…what can I really say? It’s quite interesting to read all the views submitted so far. It will be a great shame if trully all these fuss about the moon landing is a hoax. First of all, Rene and his friend has stirred up what will long be the beginning of truth being revealed. Mary I like your belief and I hope its that strong in the Lord. STMan, good thinking. Now let me ask?
    1. who filmed the landing on the moon – was i a man or a machine
    2. If the best telescope can resolve at 0.2 arc secs and the lunar lander is 0.03 arc secs – so small can be filmed by even The Hubble- then who filmed it? Then I can say somebody landed first to be able to film the first actual landing.
    3. If the Hubble can’t film an object on the moon which is so so close to us, how come its technology is so powerfull it can film/take photos of distant objects many lightyears away?
    3. Wasn’t it NASA who said they have simulated the weightlessness on the moon in their labs to train their astronauts to move on the moon
    4. The supersonic jet production was stopped because it was more of a danger than luxury.
    5. Look at the very first mobile phone, its size and look and at the current mobile touch screens that we have. do you think if there really was a Saturn V as they claim, they wouldn’t have invented something better today and much more effect than its predecessor?
    6. How come with all the rife technology it will take them twenty-five years with so much money to accomplished what they claim they accomplished years ago with less technology – may be they think we are dumb and can swallow the hook just like that.
    7. How were they able to transmitt live space video when there was no one filming it
    8. Did the Australians, British, etc planted their very own sound and video transmitters on the Saturn V or the Lunar lander so they can verify if trully the lander was out of this world or were they relying on the Americans to relay the information to them?
    There are a whole lot of questions to ask some of which we would say can be best classified as rhetoric. See the length at which America went when they got interested in the oil in Iraq? Don’t you think if moon landing was real enough, then Americans will be have ‘aeronautical estate agents’ on the moon? trust america. God bless

    • STMan says:

      Thanks for your questions. I will answer in points as you posed the questions.
      1. Who filmed the landings? As the LM (Lunar Module) decended there was a 16mm movie camera inside the lunar module aimed out the window which used color film. This could not be seen live, but only after they returned to earth and had it developed. Apollo 11 had a black and white video camera, which was used so that people could view the astronauts as they walked on the moon, live on TV. On some of the later missions, a camera that was on the lunar rover sent back video of the LM as it lifted off of the moon, it was remotely controlled from earth by NASA.
      2. & 3. The Hubble takes still pictures only. Since the moon is about 250,000 miles away the size of the lander is too small to see from Hubble, which is only about 300 miles above earth. The size of the planets in our solar system, galaxies and other astronomical objects are much larger, and therefore can be seen with hubble. No man made objects can be seen on any other astronomical body (planet, moon etc.) since they are too small.
      4. The Concord only had one accident in it’s history. It was one of the safest planes to ever fly. True, it was a luxury, and was very expensive to fly, and maintain, and not profitible, which led to it’s cancellation.
      5. What do you mean if there was a Saturn V? This is not in dispute, even by those who advocate the moon hoax theory. Thousands of people saw the launces in person. There is still 2 left which are on display in Houston Texes, and Cape Canaveral Florida. It’s replacement was the Space shuttle, since it was reusable, which was an improvement in some ways. But it could not lift as much into orbit, and therefore could not be used to return to the moon. A new heavey lifting rocket is now in development.
      6. The cost at the time was so to speak “Astronomical”, and led to it’s cancellation after apollo 17, the 6th landing. Yes there is more technology now, but money wasn’t being spent to improve technology to return to the moon.
      7. The video camera which sent back video was at times put on a tripod, so that both astronauts could be seen doing there work on the moon. It was not necessary for anyone to hold the camera.
      8. As the LM flew to the moon by aiming there antennas at their location, they could pick up the video and voice transmissions. If they didn’t go to the moon, they would have picked up nothing. So there was no need to rely on the Americans. As I wrote before, the Soviet Union, (who were there enemies, at the time), also picked up the transmissions, and even reported in their newspaper Pravda on page 1, after apollo 11 had landed.
      None of the questions that are ever asked about the moon landings are unanswerable, by looking at the facts and concluding that the moon landings were in fact real.

  21. Jace Andrus says:

    I do beleive that man landed on the moon, but I have questions and doubts. If we realy did land on the moon why doesn’t NASA just show everyone one some pictures from the hubble telescope of the flags and things that we left up there. Because they would be fake? I think it would be a lot easier to tell if they are pitures from the Hubble tellescope then from the actually mission.

    • Chris says:

      I found these pictures posted by NASA. This is best that has been achieved, I guess. The Hubble does not have the resolution to pick them up, it is a space telescope and this issue may have been addressed before.

      Of course these are low res. and critics will claim, that as posted by NASA, they are faked.

      http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

  22. Gaurasundar Das says:

    The nasa says: “These is 6:00 PM in the moon, not too hot not too cold.” But in the moon film the shadows are 3:00 PM.

  23. mary says:

    You people cant except the fact that technologay can grow!! we landed on the moon! WHY DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THE GLORY AWAY FROM PPL WHO DESERVE IT! LIKE NEAL ARMSTRONG! i think you are just jealous you didnt land on teh moon. In a movie that i watched at school it portrayed ralph rene and Bill Kaysing as crazy old men who lived in the middle of the desert in trailer houses tending tons of cats.. ppl with tons of cats are discusting and crazy. and one of ralph renes experiments that he did was using a leaf blower on a pile of rocks.. that was suppose to show how the luner module was suppose to land on the moon…. but i see no relevance from a space craft to a leaf blower…. Idont know about you but i dont thik that taht experiment was very scientific at all. WE

  24. shane says:

    I’m a little disturbed to find this on an ISKCON website…I can’t think of a bigger way to distract people from the path to enlightenment then to lure them into needless speculation about well documented historical facts. Is Krishna Consciousness about the attainment of enlightenment or about the pursuit of conspiracy theories? I’m new here, but this post makes me think I may be barking up the wrong tree. shane

    • Madhusudana Dasa says:

      The Bhagavada Gita (The Song of God) is essentially about the eternal struggle between good & evil. A subset of which is truth v lies.
      Here we have a hoax (lie) being propagated as truth if you are happy to go along with this hoax, no one can stop you.
      However Srila Prabhupada the spiritual master of the Hare Krishna movement was a staunch upholder of truth and vitue. He was a critic of the moon hoax.

      If these so-called “well documented historical facts” were so true then why such a strong contingent of experts in the acknowledged scientific field are crying hoax!

      • karl says:

        ||If these so-called “well documented historical facts” were so true then why such a strong contingent of experts in the acknowledged scientific field are crying hoax!||

        Because when Fox tv does a special saying your life’s work is a hoax, you might to argue with such people. If Fox TV had a special that said Srila Prabhupada’s life’s work was a hoax, the reaction would be… what exactly?

      • kishore gupta says:

        I have been looking into iskcon for a while and i love many aspects of it but lately i have read some things that really bother me. In regards to the moon landings i personally believe the happened but even if they didnt happen all those years ago, in the modern era there are probes that have been sent there. also there are probes on mars, ie the mars rover and they have sent probes to Saturn and Jupiter and there moons with pictures sent back. so when prabhupad says that we cannot get there with mechanical methods, this is false. unless all of nasa, the russian and indian and china space program are all one conspiracy! also how can the moon be further away than the sun from the earth. this is a ridiculous claim, that is apparently said in the srimad bhagvatam. these kind of claims remind me of christian creationist where they believe the universe is only 6000 years old. you both are taking the scriptures so literally and when science goes against it then there are some outrageous claims made.
        This is the same with iskcon believing that humans have been on this earth for billions of years and lived with dinosaurs. i really hoped that we didnt have a christian type creationists within hinduism but it seems that we have and that really is not good for our belief system.

        • Hare Krishna Kishore

          We are products of our conditioning, our upbringing. A certain view of the world is imposed upon us from the time of birth and we gradually come to accept that as absolute fact. But it is not factual actually. It is simply one view of the things that we observe going on around us and in the universe.

          Actually scientists know very little about the universe, even there are so many things they do not know about this planet. They make big, big theories and pretend to know everything but they know almost nothing.

          Srila Prabhupada gives the example of the frog in the bottom of a well. The frog observes the universe through the hole in the top of his well and he has made so many theories and thinks he has such a great understanding of the universe. But what can he see? Only the opening at the top of the well. Sometimes it is dark, sometimes it is blue, sometimes it is white, maybe he or his grandfather has once seen the moon or the sun when it happened to be directly above his well. He sometimes hears the sound of the farmers tractor when he is cultivating the fields and of course he has a scientific explanation for this sound… But what can he understand actually about the world outside his well? Nothing really. So our scientists are just like the frog in the well. They can see so little, they understand so little, and the reality is very different from their theories and speculations.

          On the other hand, in Krishna consciousness, we have a source of perfect and absolute knowledge about both the material and spiritual worlds. It is a question of where you put your faith only. You can put your faith in the scientists and be mislead by them or you can put your faith in Krishna and receive perfect spiritual and material knowledge from Him.

          Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

          Madhudvisa dasa

  25. Radhakrishna says:

    Mr.STMan can u please explain how the flag was fluttering when there is no atmosphere or wind on the moon, that is one thing which you did not explain.

    • STMan says:

      Hi: It is in fact the astronaut that causes the flag to move. The flag is supported by a vertical rod at the top of the flag which is attached to the pole at the top. If you watch all of the films (which I have), The flag only moves when the astronauts have either touched the flag or the flag pole. When the astronauts assembled the pole in order to get the sections together or the pole in the ground they rotated the pole. When the pole is moved the flag will wave for a few seconds after the pole is released, since there is no wind resistance to slow it down quickly. There is no film of the flag moving when there is no astronaut near by.

      • STMan says:

        Correction: I meant to say: The flag is supported by a horizontal rod at the top of the flag which is attached to the pole at the top.

  26. Russ Hawkins says:

    Can some one tell me how the astronauts survived the solar radiation once they passed the Van Allen Belts; along with how the film in the cameras survived in such temperature extremes? According to what is being broadcast on the television this is a virtual impossibility. I would love to know the scientific data on this. Such facts as:
    1) How much radiation the astronauts and film were exposed to over their trips.
    2) What is the amount of radiation a human body/film can be exposed to prior to death/damage.
    3) What subsequent health problems have the astronauts suffered as a consequence of exposure.
    There must be enough information to settle these points one way or the other.
    Thanks for any light anyone can shed on this.

    • STMan says:

      I’m not a radiation expert, but this site explains it well, and addresses your questions on the second page. http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

    • Clavius says:

      The photographic film was the Kodak E-3 emulsion on the polyester Estar base. Estar was developed for high-altitude and space use, first in spy satellites and then in high-altitude aircraft. However the thermal environment for the film was simply not as egregious as the conspiracy theorists make out; there are limited heat transfer paths involving the film in its magazine. Your questions:

      1. See the dosage figures on my site at http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html . It is worth noting that Skylab astronauts actually had higher dosages due to their frequent traversal of the Southern Atlantic anomaly, a low-hanging portion of the Van Allen belts.

      2. Photographic film and human tissue have different tolerances and responses to ionizing radiation. The Hasselblad 500/EL camera body was specified in the NASA statement of work to be shielded so as to withstand an exposure of 600 rads without damage to the film. I have inspected the cameras personally and found them to be sufficiently shielded. The human LD 50/30 lethal dose (the dose required to cause death in 50 percent of the population within 30 days) is 450 rem. Compare that to the miniscule amounts the astronauts received.

      3. The astronauts have largely suffered from normal aging effects. The sample size is too small to collect any statistically significant correlation to radiation effects, but as the astronauts were exposed to minimal radiation during their voyage it is not really an issue.

      The notion that the world outside the Van Allen belts is a searing radiation hell is largely a fabrication of the conspiracy theorists. During periods of solar quiescence the radiation environment is not especially hazardous over a two-week period. The conspiracy theorists can produce ZERO qualified astrophysicists who will endorse their claim that the radiation environment would have precluded trips to the Moon. Noted physicist Dr. James Van Allen has specifically repudiated the hoax theory on this point, calling it “nonsense.”

      There is indeed enough information to settle the matter, and it falls unanimously on the side of Apollo being authentic.

  27. Gaurasundar Das says:

    The NASA said that the in moon is about 200 degrees of temperature, but if there is no atmosphere, then how is too hot?

    • STMan says:

      A true vacuum would have no temperature, but outer space within the solar system does have some particles from the solar wind. Since the density is extremely low the temperature would not affect the astronauts. However the direct sun light does heat up objects. The space suits were white, which reflected alot of the infrared (and light), and therefore kept them cooler. The suface can get above 200 degrees fahrenheit, in direct sun light, which is not too hot with the insulated space suits, and gloves for picking up rocks etc.

  28. Radhakrishna says:

    And what about the dual shadows in the photos and videos, i mean if the sun is there they dont need another light source to illuminate their objects of interest so the criss cross and dual shadows should not been. Please give an explanation for that.

    • STMan says:

      The only light source is the sun. However the surface of the moon reflects back a lot of light, which can illuminate objects that are not in direct sun light. All of the photos that I have seen only have one shadow for each object, such as for a flag or rock. Every apollo photo from NASA that has been released is on this site http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html Please list which photos you think have dual shadows, so that I can have a look.

  29. Russ Hawkins says:

    I wouldn’t call a surface temperature of 200 degrees fahrenheit the result of “very weak solar radiation”. Especially considering the x-rays etc and the serious danger they represent. What are the scientific figures? Does anyone know.

    • Franck says:

      Temperaure rises when it comes to radiation (there are 3 vectors of heat transfer, from solid to solid, so in this case from the moon ground to the shoes, convection, from fluid to solid, but here there is no atmosphere, and radiation, which is that any body radiates, here it is mainly the sun) is due to what is radiated and the quantity of this wavelength of rariation. In this case, the sun, what cause temperature elevation are infrared. X-rays have nothing to do with temperature increases… They may cause the creation of radicals in such a body as the human body, which with time may provoke cancer but definitely not temperature increase. Please stop with your senseless argument based on no scientific knowledge. This is modern obscurantism!

  30. nick says:

    The moon landing may well of been part of the cold war. But there is no religion that can explain the material universe. They are just not sophisticated enough.

    Nick

  31. mary says:

    I THINK ALL OF YOU PPL ARE CRAZY!!!! EVEN IF THE MOON DOES LOOK LIKE CHEESE WE STILL LANDED ON IT! THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE

  32. Radhakrishna says:

    Mr.STMan
    Please answer one more question for me. The first country to go into space was Russia. And its a proven fact that Russia’s Space technology was by far more than that of America and rest of the world. Then how come only America has gone on the moon. Till now how come Russians or Chinese never stepped on the moon ? Dont they want the glory of being on the moon ? We cannot say they dont have the technology thats for sure. Clear this doubt for me please.

    • STMan says:

      True the Russians (or Soviets at the time) were ahead with the first satellite, and the first man in orbit. The americans actually caught up very quicky each time, within months matching the feat. The Soviets however had trouble with their heavy lifting rocket, which was required for a moon landing, and scrapped the program once the Americans had landed on the moon. China is now only beginning to do low earth orbit flights, and are serveral years away from even attempting a moon orbital flight, much less a landing, but in time it may happen. Developing large rockets is very expensive and in fact dangerous. Most early rockets exploded on the launch pad or never reached orbit. It is a lot easier to copy technologies, such as cell phones, and flat panel TV’s than rockets, especially, since no other countries are allowed to examine U.S. rockest such as the Saturn V and the Shuttle, although the Soviets had a small version it was discontinued after a flight that landed in the ocean.

  33. andrew says:

    isint india planning to go to the moon now?i wonder how they would ever be able to pull that off finnancially etc.

    • Dear Andrew

      Everyone is planing to go to the Moon. India, China, Russia, Japan, etc. These plans have been going on for many, many years, but none of these countries actually end up going.

      And it is not expensive to go to the moon. All the research is already done from the Apollo days. According to them you just need a 2 stage rocket and you throw up a space capsule and it automatically goes to the moon and then you blast off the moon and it will automatically fall back to the earth… In the sixties it was very simple… The President said “We will land men on the Moon.” And in a few years we had the pictures of the men on the Moon on our television sets…

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      • ScottyBoy says:

        Dear Mad-Hatter: God I would love to play you in a no-limit Texas Hold’em game. You can’t be for real.

  34. karl says:

    @Russ Hawkins and other doubters

    It would appear STMan has a logical, scientific explanation for every single one of your so-called anomalies that, I gather, make you questions the obvious truth that man walked on the moon. Given STman has answered all of your questions, would you now agree that believing man walked on the moon is a reasonable position? If no, why? What goal post of evidence is required by you (short of flying you personally to the moon) for you to change your position? What would falsify your belief? There’s a lot of talk about science in this thread but a good scientific thinker can articulate, very clearly, what it would take to falsify his/her position. Let me state mine: I believe man went to the moon. NASA, Japan, China, the EU are sending many space probes to the moon. If one of those probes took a photo of any Apollo site and the camera should be able to resolve equipment that should be there, then this would falsify my belief. I would not retort “well, China/Japan/the EU erased the evidence in the photos!”.

    Can you do the same? Or would you always move the goal post and claim you now need evidence the government didn’t photoshop pictures, etc.

    What I find amusing about the original posting is all of the original author’s questions have been answered by half a dozen sites written by space scientists like Phil Plait, Stuart Robbins, etc. A simple google would have answered ever single one of the author’s questions. For example, the “why are there no stars?” question the poster raised has been debunked for the last, oh, 10 years.

    Did he not do this? That seems terribly poor scholarship. Good scholars try to first falsify their own claims. The author would have presented a MUCH stronger article if he examined the extant answers to these often repeated claims and explained why they’re poor answers.

    I found these sites in mere seconds:

    http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/category/moon/
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/category/debunking/
    http://www.clavius.org/

    • Hare Krishna Karl

      This is religion not science.

      STMan is worshiping NASA and he accepts them as his authority, he believes in NASA, he has absolute faith in NASA, and he will try to defend and prove that everything NASA ever says is true. So he is a true believer, in NASA. He is not at all impartial or honest. He does not admit even the slight posibablity that NASA may be wrong and does not even consider the possibility that the manned moon missions may have been faked.

      The thing is everything can be “explained” “scientifically.” But if the scientist is not impartial then that explanation is useless. STMann will only ever worship NASA and if he comes across anything that questions NASA he will conveniently ignore it or try to cover it up with his “science.”

      There are so many “scientiests” like STMan in so many fields who are actually working for some vested interest and in the name of that vested interest presenting so much “science” that is nothing more than a political attempt to mislead the people who hear them.

      For example look at “man made global warming.” It is a nonsense theory completely disproved by so many actual scientists. But you get fools like Al Gore and a few paid of scientists trying to establish that all the problems of the world come from the man-made carbon dioxide emissions. Which are completely insignificant in the “big picture.” But you see they are doing this for another reason. They want to introduce a global carbon tax where the whole world will be forced to pay tax to and the promoters of the “man made global warming” nonsense will make a lot of money out of this.

      Similarly NASA is making a lot of money by sending these fake missions to the moon and other planets. So like the “Global warming scientists” who are trying to convince everyone “scientifically” that man-made CO2 emissions are the only problem we need to look at, and in this way they will be able to introduce their world carbon tax, NASA obviously want to keep some prestige and at least some funding coming in to pay their saleries, so they have many STMen out there scientifically “proving” that everything NASA ever said was perfect and that they sent men to the Moon…

      There is still no proof that men went to the moon, and there are still so many anomalies. Until there is actual proof that we went to the moon, and that proof is really that we can go there and come back now as we like and we can do things on the moon that are visible from the earth then this question “Did we really go to the moon?” will always be there.

      What has happened with the moon mission has never happened before in the history of mankind. Apparently we had many successful manned missions to the moon in the 60s with very primitive technology but in the fifty years following that no man has ever gone to the moon again. And now George Bush gave NASA the mandate to put a man on the moon again, and NASA’s reply was basically, “Sorry, we can’t do it…” They may do it in 20 years time?

      This is crazy. Once one man climbs Mount Everest and the path is chalked out many other men will follow. So if we have actually been to the moon so many times in the 60′s and now for 50 years no one has been and NASA say no, we still can’t go there, not for at least another 20 years, one obviously has to question, “Did we ever go to the moon.”

      So STMan’s presentation is very, very unreasonable. He does not even consider the posibility that the moon missions were faked, even though there is no proof that man went to the moon. The only proof I have ever seen given is:

      - Moon rocks, that are very similar to earth rocks and which could have been made on Earth
      - Lunar Lazar Ranging. Which means firing a lazer at some small reflectors that are supposed to be left on the moon by some of the Apollo missions. There are supposed to be three reflectors up there 2 are one foot square and one is three foot square. I have spent quite some time working with the scientists at the only functioning Luna Lazer tracking station in Texas. It is run by an old scientist and three lab technicians. It is a small trailer on the top of a hill with a 12 telescope and a green lazer pulsing out these impressive green beams of light at night. But mostly they can not get any returns from the supposed reflectors on the moon. It is quite bizzare. They are looking for a few photons of light only. Because by the time the lazer beam gets to the moon it is hundreds of miles wide. So how much of the lazer light can fall on a 1 foot square reflector? and then by the time the reflection gets back to earth that little bit of light that fell on the reflector is spread over hundreds of miles and so many of the photons of light in the reflection don’t get through the earth’s atmosphere. So how many photons of the reflected light are likely to come back into the 12″ telescope? Not many at all…

      And the experiment is “rigged.” What they do is they fire the lazer and they already “know” the distance of the earth to the moon so they “know” when to expect the returned photons. So they do not turn on the detector until the time they “know” the photons will be returning from the moon on that pulse. And then they very quickly turn off the detector again. Of course it is done by a computer program. So they only look for photons in the time interval when they “know” the reflected photons will be coming back. And of course even if they find some photons they have no idea where they are coming from. It may be just atmospheric light. There is no way they can tell the difference between light reflected from the supposed reflectors on the moon and any other light. Of course the wavelength. They look for green light… But any green light will do.

      So if they happen to find some green light in that tiny time interval when they are expecting the returns from the reflectors on the moon they say they have got a return…

      I have also spent some time in Australia at Siding Springs where some more honest scientists were doing this experiment. In Australia they are in the best place to get reflections from the supposed reflectors on the moon but despite doing this experiment as Siding Springs for many years they could never conclusivly say that they were getting any reflection from the supposed reflectors… And for some time the French were also doing this experiment. And they claimed they could always get the reflections of their lazer returned. They claimed they could even do it in full sunshine…

      So anyhow, I have throughly studied this Lunar Lazar Ranging experiment and found it does not give conclusive proof that there are reflectors on the moon.

      Of course the moon itself is a reflector so in theory if you fire a powerful enough lazer at it you will get a reflection, even if there are no reflectors on the moon.

      So apart from the moon rocks and the Lunar Lazer Ranging, I have never heard anyone put forward any proof whatsoever that man has been on the moon and there are so many discrepancies and inconsistencies in the photographic and film record that NASA presents that any thoughtful man must consider at least the possibility that the manned moon missions may have been faked. It may not have been faked, but there is no proof of it, so a thoughtful man can not blindly ignore that possibility.

      So STMan is simply a blind religious follower of NASA. He has an agenda, and that is to prove that man walked on the moon. He does not really care to find the truth if man walked on the moon or not. The truth is not his mission. His mission is a propaganda mission for saving the face of NASA.

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  35. GODISMYSHADOW says:

    If man never walked on the moon, who put the reflectors there? Was a probe used to plant the reflectors?

  36. STMan says:

    Religous follower of NASA? Not at all. That’s the first time that I’ve ever been accused of that and of working for NASA. Certainly they are by no means perfect. You need look no further than the two shuttle disasters, and apollo one, all of which could have been prevented. After the columbia disaster a few years ago, I was watching a NASA press conference where the NASA officials were denying that a piece of foam could have caused the disaster. Having seen the film of the foam striking the orbiter, I knew that they were jumping to a conclusion that was probably wrong (a later test proved this). However that’s a far cry from faking a mission or NINE, to the moon.

    If you look at the history of NASA, yes there has been mistakes, but coverups? Actually the opposite is true. Take for example the apollo one disaster which killed 3 astronauts. If they wanted to cover it up, they could have claimed that they died in a helicopter crash (Saddam Hussein had that one perfected), or a car accident. Since the disaster set the apollo program back considerabley, but in the end lead to a safer vehicle, and no more ground tests using pure oxygen. Then there’s the challenger disaster which after an investigation to find the cause lead to no more cold day shuttle launches and an additional O-ring in the booster seals. Also look at the problems with several Mars missions, which ended in failure. The problems were found and corrected, with no signs of any coverups.

    If there is a fake photo, on NASA’s apollo image gallery, where is it and what about it is fake? Let me know, and I will have a look at it. If the landings are fake then there should be enough bad photography and other evidence to convince even me. If you watch the apollo 11 video, it’s quite bad, but you can actually see when most ot the apollo 11 70mm photos are being shot (mostly be Neil Armstrong), which means there’s a video record of the photos being taken. This is also true for many of the photos taken on other mission, where video is being shot (often by a camera on a tripod or attached to the lunar rover) of one or both of the astronaut taking the 70mm photos. I haven’t seen any inconsistencies in the photo video or film record, other than a video which was misslabelled as being at a different location. Yes errors do happen.

    If you read all of my comments, I never attack people or call them names, which is one thing that both sides of the issue do too much of.

    When you look at any historical event, it either happened or it didn’t. That’s the question posed by this site, and I try my best to answer the ones that I am able to. The reason I ‘know’, “not believe”, but “know” that the moon landings did happen, is because all of the evidence, even from outside of NASA, points to the same conclusion. Examples: I recently saw an interview of a british astronomer, who tracked the apollo 11 mission from Britain, with their large antenaes. The Soviet Union, who had nothing to gain, did the same and reported on the 1st landing in Pravda (the goverment controlled newspaper). The retro reflectors, do return enough photons to detect with large enough telescopes, but only if the laser is aimed near the correct landing sites where they were placed. A laser produces a specific frequency of light, so not any green light detected will do. Your comments imply that this too, is being faked as part of an ongoing conspiracy. True if that was the only evidence I would agree that it is weak.

    One thing I do consider myself to be an expert on is photography, and I have looked at almost every apollo photo. Some of the most convincing are actually of the earth from a distance. It’s easy to get a photos of the moon with a telescope (at least the side facing Earth) but how do you photograph the Earth from the distance of the moon. Remember these are not originally digital photos but high resolution 70mm film shot with a hasselblad camera, meaning that the photos of the earth taken from a distance had to be returned to earth to be developed. So before you think that they too could be fake, think about this: Several are taken in sequence with the cloud patterns changing and the earth rotating. The first pictures of this type were from apollo 8 in 1968, when they flew around the moon without landing (AS8-14-2383 is one of them). You cannot photograph the whole earth from low earth orbit like on the shuttle, since you can only see the part of the earth that you are above. It’s a little like trying to see the your whole house with your eyes an inch away.

    The surface pictures from the 6 landing, show no sign of fakery, but rather consistently show one light source (the sun) plus the reflected light from the surface.

    Here’s a question which I have never heard a good answer to: Why would they have faked apollo 10. The purpose of apollo 10 was to test the lunar lander and command module in orbit around the moon. Imagine getting the go ahead for this: Well what we want to do now before we fake the moon landing is to launch a multimillion dollar Saturn V, so that we can fake doing a test (without landing on the moon) in lunar orbit. I guess the moon sets weren’t ready in time.

    Remember the reason that there hasn’t been any more landings is because the Saturn V was replaced with the space shuttle, which too is about to be retired. Maybe in 30 or 40 years, people won’t believe the shuttle flights were real either. After all the only proof will be a bunch of old astronauts (who’s lives will be in danger if they admit it was fake) and some aging video. No dust or rocks to examine, so to some, there won’t be any evidence that the shuttles ever flew.

    So, once again: There is proof: The astronauts, who’s stories have remained consistent for 40 years. The photos, video, movie film, the rocks, dust (tested by geologists around the world), and the people inside and outside of NASA who tracked the missions (including the Soviets). And yes, even to retro reflectors.

    • Radhakrishna says:

      So about the pictures of earth taken from moon, it is possible to take them from space not moon right, and moon will still be reflecting light, doesn’t mean that will reflect light only when you are standing on it. And i think other countries could have landed on the moon by now because it very big thing for everyone. And some of your answers are too technical for people to understand right so thats a way to convince people. Im not doubting any of your scientific knowledge but try to think once from our point of view. We dont have any grudge against NASA. With the amount of money they have, they can make us to believe anything. So anyway please clarify my doubt about the photos.

      • STMan says:

        When we look at the earth or the moon or any planet, we are seeing reflected light from the sun. The picture of the earth taken from the moon had to have been taken from at least that distance, since we can see the complete hemishere (half of the earth). When a picture is taken from near earth orbit (the height that the shuttle flies or the international space station), only part of the earth can be seen. If you are too close to any object you can not see (or photograph) the whole thing. You can do this experiment yourself: Using any camera try to take a picture of your house (or any buiding) from a foot or two (or .5 metres), you will find out that it isn’t possible. If you use a wide enough angle lens (called a fish eye lens) you may see a lot more of the building, but it will be distorted.

        As far as your comments about NASA, true they did have a large budget in order to do the moon landings in such a short time, but the money was spent developing the rocket, the fuel, the lander, the rover, the spacesuits, and peoples salaries, who worked on the project. That money was all accounted for in the budget. Thousands of people worked on the different components. In order to secretly fake the landing, even more money would have been required than was spent. Where would that money have come from? Also no one has ever come forward with credibal evidence that they or anyone else worked on faking the landings. But it is easy to find people who actually did work on the apollo project.

    • a reader says:

      I just wanted to thank you for all you posts: they and clavius.org should really alleviate any doubts on the topic. Occum’s Razor lives on :)

  37. karl says:

    ||This is religion not science.||

    Define science. Define religion. They both share some similarities but so do a cat and dog (ears, fur, tails, have litters). A cat is not a dog. Differences are also important. In science, for example, all knowledge is tentative and subject to revision or overthrow. Not many religions are ready to abandon core beliefs in the light of overwhelming evidence.

    ||STMan is worshiping NASA and he accepts them as his authority, he believes in NASA, he has absolute faith in NASA, and he will try to defend and prove that everything NASA ever says is true. ||

    Of course the poster’s claims could also be lies as well. To say STMan has absolute faith in NASA is a straw man. I wonder what his opinion of NASA was during the shuttle disasters. STMan and me both happen to place more trust in the consensus of scientists and experts regarding things like space science than someone with no expertise making claims that have extant detailed science-based, factual answers.

    ||So he is a true believer, in NASA. He is not at all impartial or honest. He does not admit even the slight posibablity that NASA may be wrong and does not even consider the possibility that the manned moon missions may have been faked.||

    I guess when confronted with the facts, you can just label your opponent as not being honest. Convenient. Facts that don’t support your world view are simply lies?

    So for example when someone claims we should have been able to see stars and someone explains that it’s a matter of exposure, you go “oh you’re not being honest”. Better, you could actually run the experiment yourself. Point a camera at the night sky with a bright light source (say a street lamp). Find out if it exposes the light source and the stars. You might know that the show Myth Busters actually DID this. They tested the scientific counter claims to the moon hoax allegations. And they found the scientific claims to be valid. More dishonesty? Hmmm?

    And yes, we DO entertain the possibility that the moon landings were faked. That’s why we’ve explored the evidence for them.

    ||The thing is everything can be “explained” “scientifically.” But if the scientist is not impartial then that explanation is useless. STMann will only ever worship NASA and if he comes across anything that questions NASA he will conveniently ignore it or try to cover it up with his “science.”||

    You don’t know anything about STMann but you feel free to assume certain beliefs?

    ||There are so many “scientiests” like STMan in so many fields who are actually working for some vested interest and in the name of that vested interest presenting so much “science” that is nothing more than a political attempt to mislead the people who hear them.||

    It’s very easy to avoid facts, evidence, and logic and explain it away with a conspiracy theory.

    ||For example look at “man made global warming.” It is a nonsense theory completely disproved by so many actual scientists. But you get fools like Al Gore and a few paid of scientists trying to establish that all the problems of the world come from the man-made carbon dioxide emissions. Which are completely insignificant in the “big picture.” But you see they are doing this for another reason. They want to introduce a global carbon tax where the whole world will be forced to pay tax to and the promoters of the “man made global warming” nonsense will make a lot of money out of this.||

    A few paid scientists happen to be every meteorological society in every major nation in the world? This is a red herring in any regard.

    ||Similarly NASA is making a lot of money by sending these fake missions to the moon and other planets.||

    Really? Pay scales in NASA are far, far below industry averages.

    ||There is still no proof that men went to the moon, and there are still so many anomalies.||

    As I originally asked what would you accept as proof? Give me a real goal post. What would falsify your belief? I’ve stated mine. Please state yours. Again, an anomaly is only something that you think has no answer given the claim. These anomalies have been answered. Your counter claim is hand waving: lies, conspiracy, dishonesty. Could you give me the top three scientific counter claims and explain why they’re not good counter claims without merely claiming the answers are dishonest?

    ||What has happened with the moon mission has never happened before in the history of mankind. Apparently we had many successful manned missions to the moon in the 60s with very primitive technology but in the fifty years following that no man has ever gone to the moon again. And now George Bush gave NASA the mandate to put a man on the moon again, and NASA’s reply was basically, “Sorry, we can’t do it…” They may do it in 20 years time? ||

    That claim was already answered. Why are you back repeating an answered claim?

    ||This is crazy. Once one man climbs Mount Everest and the path is chalked out many other men will follow. So if we have actually been to the moon so many times in the 60’s and now for 50 years no one has been and NASA say no, we still can’t go there, not for at least another 20 years, one obviously has to question, “Did we ever go to the moon.”||

    Some might argue we never climbed Everest too using the same “logic”. Photos? Fakes. Witnesses? Liars. Mountain climbing is a big industry. Lots of people pay huge sums to visit Everst. None make it to the top but they lie about it because they don’t want to seem foolish having spent $15,000 and never reaching the top. If you’ve been to the top yourself then you are just part of the rascal industry and dishonest.

    It’s easy to disprove a claim when you can wave your hands and make up evidence. No?

    ||- Moon rocks, that are very similar to earth rocks and which could have been made on Earth||

    What is your evidence for that claim? The solar system was formed out of the same cloud of matter. Why shouldn’t two bodies close together be chemically similar?

    ||-But mostly they can not get any returns from the supposed reflectors on the moon. ||

    Says you? Could you document this claim? You don’t take STMan’s word for it. Why should I take yours?

    ||And the experiment is “rigged.” ||

    Wait. They rig it but they also have a hard time getting a return? Why not rig it so it works better?

    ||I have also spent some time in Australia at Siding Springs where some more honest scientists were doing this experiment. In Australia they are in the best place to get reflections from the supposed reflectors on the moon but despite doing this experiment as Siding Springs for many years they could never conclusivly say that they were getting any reflection from the supposed reflectors… And for some time the French were also doing this experiment. And they claimed they could always get the reflections of their lazer returned. They claimed they could even do it in full sunshine…||

    Says you? Could you document this claim? You don’t take STMan’s word for it. Why should I take yours?

    ||Of course the moon itself is a reflector so in theory if you fire a powerful enough lazer at it you will get a reflection, even if there are no reflectors on the moon.||

    Yes. But you will get a better return if you hit the pad. If you move the laser slightly off where the pad should be, you’ll get a lower return. Anyway, this page contradicts your claims about poor results:

    http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/dda.html

    More lies?

    • Hello Karl & STMan

      I appreciate the points you are making and do not have the time or inclination to discuss these issues over and over again.

      Actually people make up their mind on these things and do not tend to change.

      As I have said the “proof” of man walking on the moon comes only from one source, NASA. And the actual evidence that anyone outside NASA can test is the existence of the reflectors left on the moon and the nature of the moon rocks which were supposedly brought to earth by the Apollo missions.

      For me this is not sufficient proof. I do not share the faith in NASA that you two gentlemen have. You do accept that they are telling the truth and I do not necessary accept that they are telling the truth. So for me the “evidence” comes down to the moon rocks and the Luna Lazar Ranging experiment. I have investigated both of these and found them to be not conclusive proof.

      You may consider that the moon is a reflector anyhow and it has craters. So it just may be that some of those craters are shaped like parabolic reflectors and if you fire a lazer at the right craters that will give the impression that there is a reflector on the moon. I am not saying this is the case but it is a plausible explanation why the LLR experiment may get some returns even if there are no reflectors on the moon place by the Apollo mission.

      You are both trying to compare the man on the moon story with facts we know and say it is the same thing. You say in the future that the shuttle flights may not be believed in. But that is not possible. Shuttle fights are a fact and everyone is using the GPS and other satellites put up in orbit by the shuttle. There is tangible proof of the shuttle flights and there are observable results from these flights.

      And the idea that someone may make a consistory theory that no one has every climbed Mt Everest is ridiculous. You can not make a conspiracy theory about something that there is clear proof for. Anyone who is reasonably fit and prepared to spend the time and money can climb Mt Everest and prove for himself that this can be done. However, to this day, only NASA was able to put men on the moon and only for a few years in the 60 with the Apollo program. And now, after almost 50 years, no one has been able to put men on the moon since, and even NASA, after being ordered by George Bush to put man on the moon again and given a budget to do it, had to say, “Sorry, we can’t do it. Maybe in 30 or 40 years we can do it…”

      Therefore the proof is missing.

      Proof is simple. If you know how to go to the moon then people should be able to go to the moon. All the countries like India, China and Japan who have money and are prepared to spend it on going to the moon should be able to go.

      There is nothing missing. The information on how to go there is available from the Apollo missions, the money is available from the governments of US, China, India, Japan and others, but no one is able to put men on the moon?

      So the proof that we went to the moon is the fact that we can go to the moon now. Until that time a great cloud of doubt will hang over the so-called “men on the moon” in the sixties.

      It is nice that Karl admitted that he has some dobut if we actually went to the moon and perhaps STMan can also consider that really there is not conclusive proof and perhaps he can keep an open mind on this issue.

      For me it really does not matter if we have been to the moon or not, however I find it interesting that there are people who are so determined to “prove” that we have been to the moon when there is no solid proof that we have been.

      As I said I do not have the time, energy or inclination to continue this discussion but there will be no end to the suspicion that NASA faked the moon landings until we can go to the moon again on a regular basis and do practical things there.

      Madhudvisa dasa

      • Radhakrishna says:

        I totally agree with Madhudvisa Prabhu, if man has landed on moon once he can land on it now too. If they colud do it in 6os they can do it now, the technology present is far greater now. A single computer which im using now is far better and greater than many computers combined which were used in the original space programme which put men on the moon. Thats just a small example. And funds is no matter at all. So i dont see why people can still believe that man has landed on moon. So please stop anymore discussion on this topic. I respect everyones opinion but the matter of opinion doesn’t matter when it comes to absolute truth. Everyone whether they have landed on moon or not HAVE to agree that there is no solution to the biggest problems of life – Birth, Old age, Disease and Death – except chanting and service to the Lord. So lets not devote any more time on the topic and concentrate more on involving in service to Supreme Lord.

        • karl says:

          ||if man has landed on moon once he can land on it now too. If they colud do it in 6os they can do it now, the technology present is far greater now.||

          Your claim has already been answered a couple times. I’m not sure why you don’t deal with the response to the claim instead of simply repeating the claim “if we did it before, we should be able to do it again.” The answer is “yes”. We can also send space probes out of the solar system but we’ve only done that three times, the last time in the 1970s. Because we’re not doing it in the 1990s and the 2000s, are you suggesting the Voyager missions are fake?

          • Many other countries [India, China, Japan] have moon programs and want to go there and have plenty of money to pay for it and so far they have not been able to go either. Russia has never been able to put a man on the moon. So far it is only the Americans and you could only do it for a short time in the 60′s and now you can’t do it any more.

            Every country who wants to go to the moon and has the money to spend to build the rockets should be able to go to the moon, if we actually went in the 60′s and know how to get there.

            A scientific experiment has to be repeatable. If you others can not repeat what you have done in your lab everyone will think you are cheating or you have made a mistake. What to speak of if you can not even repeat it yourself!!

            Everyone will naturally think there must have been something fishy with the first experiment…

          • karl says:

            Again, China is planning to go there. As I’ve noted above, you have to do it step by step. You can’t just strap on a rocket, throw a bunch of money at the problem, and go tomorrow. Please see my previous comments and comment on why that is not a reasonable answer to your claim.

            Using your Everest example, if I were skeptical about a summit claim, I could repeat the experiment myself. But I could not simply do it tomorrow right? Even if I had the money? I would have to train. I would have to hire the right guides. I would have to do do a number of steps before I could reach the top of everest and see evidence of past visitations.

            And yes, NASA provides independent researchers many opportunities to perform repeatable experiments: testing moon rocks, anyone can bounce a laser off the LRR pads, etc. I’m sure if you wanted you could even get NASA to provide you with the original negative film roles for examination.

      • ScottyBoy says:

        “There is nothing missing. The information on how to go there is available from the Apollo missions, the money is available from the governments of US, China, India, Japan and others, but no one is able to put men on the moon?”

        It’s not “no one is able …” it is for what economic benefit would they do it? It is an incredibly expensive undertaking.

        Proof, you want proof? How about doing some research across the globe with independant scientists then come back with you answer. Better yet, why don’t you get out your cell phone and call them right now? You’ll be using modern technology derived directly from the U.S. space program.

      • STMan says:

        Firt I wanted to say that I appreciate Karl’s comments, also that I did comment on ths shuttle disasters in one of my last comments.

        Madhudvisa dasa: I am doing my best to point out that there is proof outside of NASA. If the photos, video, film, rocks, and dust were only examined by NASA and verified by them, they you could say that we are relying on NASA. These things can be verified, (as they have been), by others around the world. Aside from that, does it not count as evidence that the Soviet Union who was their enemy at the time, tracked and verified and reported that the moon landings did occur? If there was no manned vehicle heading to the moon at the time, there would have been no communications for them to pick up when they (and other countries outside of the U.S.) tracked the spacecraft. That is real proof, by sources outside of NASA. Would you have had to have done it yourself for you to believe it?

        The GPS satellites were launced by Delta rockets, and not the shuttle. The idea of the people not believing that the shuttle launches were real sounds rediculous now, just as thinking that the moon landings were fake in the years that they were happening.

        Also NASA’s goal for the next moon landing is around the year 2020, not is 30 or 40 years as you say. So why is it taking longer this time you might ask? This time, there is no space race to be there first, plus, there is no unlimited budget. If China, for example gets there before NASA, they still will only be the second country to do it, not the first. Also NASA, isn’t rebuilding the same vehicles that got them there during apollo. This time they will use two types of rockets: One unmanned heavy lifting rocket, and one smaller manned rocket. Only after the heavy lifting rocket safely gets it’s payload into low earth orbit will the second rocket with the Orion capsule, and it’s crew, be launced. So it will be a totally different system.

        As for your comment about the moon being a reflector and a parabolic crater reflection back a laser. Even if you make a parabolic reflector and put it on the moon, it would not reflect back light to the source from any angle, which is what a retro reflector does by design.

        About your comment: STMan can also consider that really there is not conclusive proof and perhaps he can keep an open mind on this issue.

        My response is this: By coming to this site, (and other like it) I am reading different peoples opinions, have heard most if not all of the evidence and the questions that people have. All of the evidence that I have seen points only to one conclusion, that is why I have no doubts. It isn’t like you think “faith or a belief” any more than, acknowledging that people did climb Mount Everest. I haven’t been there either, but have seen interviews, video etc., which are enough to prove the fact, just as with the moon landings.

        I do agree the comments (even mine) are getting repeditive. So I would ask that people read all of the comments, so that they don’t ask a question that already has been asked, and answered.

        One last comment for people to consider. Watch the films shot of and from the lunar rover as it drives for long distances. The surface is brightly lit, and there is a black sky (just as in all of the photos, and live video). Not to mention, it is clear that they are driving in a lower gravity environment. Look how high the dust from the tires is thrown above the surface, and how it falls down without staying suspended in the air (because they are in a vacuum) without making a dust cloud. This was done almost 40 years ago using film cameras, no CGI (computer generated imagery) for special effects was possible at the time. So unless you can figure out how they simulated the bright lighting with a black sky, low gravity, and in a vacuum on earth, and find out where and the people who did it, I will remain convinced that there is only one answer, that being: It was all done on the moon as history tells us. Plus look at all of the film and video of the astronauts being weightless for extended periods of time, during the flights to and from the moon.

        • Hello Stman

          I understand your reasoning, and like you I have heard both sides of these arguments over and over again. But I come from a different background than you. You come from the perspective of believing in NASA and not having any reason to question anything that NASA says. And that is your position. My position is that I have some information from other sources that makes it obvious to me that it is not very easy to go to the moon so I am approaching this issue from this point of view therefore I do not blindly accept what NASA says or what they present as “evidence.”

          NASA may be lying. This is not a new think in science. Every conditioned soul has four defects. He has the tendency to cheat, he makes mistakes, he is illusioned, it means he accepts something to be true which is not actually true and he has imperfect senses which means even the information that comes through his senses is not perfect and complete.

          So if we accept the premise that NASA may be lying we can not accept that their photos are taken on the moon for example. You accept everything they say unless it can be proven otherwise. I do not accept anything they say unless it can be proven independently.

          You stated that perhaps the best evidence was a photo of the earth from the moon. But how do you know that what NASA is showing you is a photo of the earth from the moon? I can make a model of the earth and set up some clouds about it and organize the lighting and take a photo. And you can not tell if that is taken from the moon or taken by me in my studio of my model of the moon.

          The bottom line is everything that NASA has shown us about the moon mission can be faked. The radio signals can be faked. You don’t have to send them from the moon. Radio signals bounce. If you can bounce lazars off the moon you can also bounce radio signals off the moon. So you can transmit from the earth and bounce off the moon and everyone will think they are coming from the moon. You can also transmit from satellites somewhere in the direction of the moon. Radio signals are not very directional.

          Anyhow the point is not in the details, the point is everything can be faked. You may not understand exactly how they faked it. But that does not mean it can not be faked. You can go and see a magician making doves come out of his hat. You do not know how he is doing it but you do know there is some trick to it.

          This thread is for the discussions of people who at least accept that NASA may have faked it and we are exploring that direction.

          I am very glad for your comments and Karls comments, but they are the same thing over and over again and no matter what you say your premise is that what NASA says is correct, NASA is not lying to us. Our premise is different. We are starting from distrust in what NASA is saying and want independent verification of their claims.

          As I have said the proof that we have been to the moon is that we can go to the moon. And at the moment we can not go to the moon. And that would not be the case if we had already gone to the moon many times in the sixties. So the fact that we can not go to the moon now almost 50 years later with so much improvement in technology is proof that we did not go to the moon in the 60′s.

          Anyhow, I am not going to post any more comments you and Karl as you are monopolizing this discussion and you are just presenting the same old points we have heard thousands of times before.

          The point of this thread is to investigate the possibility that NASA faked the moon missions. We are not very interested in the official NASA story which is what you and Karl are giving us.

          We see so many big, big lies coming out of the US. It seems US government is not afraid of lying about anything. The bigger the lie the better. So that NASA lied about sending men to the moon is not a very surprising thing.

          Anyhow, I am not posting any more of these comments like Stman and Karl and this thread now goes back to investigating the possibility that NASA faked the “man on the moon” story.

          Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

          Madhudvisa dasa

          • STMan says:

            Hi: I just read your last comments, so I don’t expect you to post this reply. That’s okay with me, after all this is your site. I do however want to thank you for posting the one’s that you did, and I think for the most part that I did get my points across. However I’m not sure that it will improve your site to only have one point of view (the one that you agree with) or others that leave false information. Some of the one’s who believe in the landings, were doing this, and even resorting to calling others names (which I never did). I certainly was not attempting to change your mind, since it is clear what your belief is, but rather, to respond to the points that you were making, and to give answers to those who asked questions. As you can see for yourself, a lot of the people were starting to direct their questions at me, because they could see that I was giving logical answers, and wasn’t just relying on NASA, and what they say. You may still get questions directed at me. Are you going to post those questions or not? If you want I won’t make anymore comments unless someone specifically asks me a question. It’s up to you. If you do have a question yourself, I would be willing to answer that too. Finally, I just wanted to say that I enjoyed reading the other comments on your site, and also responding to them. Thanks.

          • Hello STMan

            If you like it then you can keep posting, why not?

            You are very good at answering all the questions and maybe when I have some time I will ask you some questions and we can have a bit of a discussion on this.

            You are in a different world for sure. You believe everything the government tells you. I saw your other posting which I did delete unfortunately, where you were ridiculing the people who did not think a 747 flew into the Pentagon on 911.

            That I think shows where you are at. It is the “official party line” that a 747 flew into the Pentagon on 911 so you believe it and you will defend it.

            However to us who have no particular faith in the US government and who saw the news footage on the day we know it was not a 747. There was an 8 foot diameter hole in the wall of the pentagon building and the story is that somehow a 747 with its wings and engines went into that hole and then somehow disappeared. One news coverage mentioned “vaporized…”

            You are an intelligent man. A 747 has big wings with big heavy engines on it. If such a plane was to slam into the Pentagon it would not simply make an 8 foot diameter hole and disappear. It the engines would slam against the wall on either side of the center impact and the wings would probably break off and there would be a huge amount of wreckage on the lawn. But we have the footage of the fire burning around the 8 foot hole and after some time the wall colapsing. You can see there is no damage to the building except for this hole and the fire. There are no 747 wings, no 747 engines, no luguage, no dead passangers. Nothing you would expect to see at a 747 crash site.

            Still you believe a 747 hit the pentagon and call anyone who doesn’t a “conspiracy theorist…”

            You are taking the same approach with NASA’s moon landings. You are simply defending the “official story” without really questioning if the official story is true or not.

            I know you are good at defending the “official story.” You are good at debating. But you know a good debater can win on either side. That you can win in a discussion does not mean that you are correct. It means you are good at presenting the point. But the point still may be wrong.

            So my humble request is that you do a bit of soul-searching and question and really ask yourself if you know that a 747 hit the Pentagon on 911 and if you really know that men walked on the moon or not…

            I hope you will listen to the other side. No matter what you say and how well you can explain it there are so many inconsistencies in the NASA manned moon missions.

            Like you believe a 747 went into the Pentagon, but actually it can not have, however that is the official story, so you believe it, you also believe that a lunar lander can land on the moon firing it retro-rockets and land on the lunar surface without making even the slightest impression in the dust on the lunar surface, while we see the astronauts walking around kicking up the dust and making big footprints in the surface.

            It is impossible, but it is the official NASA story, so you have to believe it, and not only that you will give us a “logical” explanation as to why it is so…

            Madhudvisa dasa

          • karl says:

            ||You are taking the same approach with NASA’s moon landings. You are simply defending the “official story” without really questioning if the official story is true or not.||

            That’s not true at all. The original post and follow on posters have been making claims that X is impossible therefore moon hoax. STman (and myself) have been pointing out X is not impossible because of Y. STman has also gone out of his way to rely on non-NASA information. He’s pointed that out at least once, but you simply repeat your same claim, despite it being pointed out to you your claim is inaccurate.

            It’s not about defending the official story. It’s about pointing out the official moon hoax story has massive holes, easily explained by basic science. As I pointed out originally, the original poster regurgitated the standard moon hoax claims that have been answered, some for the last decade. The OP could have easily did a quick google search and found the counter claims. A good researcher would have explained why the counter claims are misleading or poor. Further some of these claims are easy to test and debunk. Myth Busters did just that. You can find the video on youtube I believe. They looked at the moon hoax claims, examined the counter claims, and then TESTED the counter claims. They found the counter claims accurate.

            Why don’t moon hoax believers do that themselves? Again, good researchers put forward a hypothesis, explain why it’s a good hypothesis, find counter claims to their lines of evidence, and then establish why counter claims do no violence to their lines of evidence. That’s good scholarship.

            Again, let me ask. Some people have said above that if NASA controlled telescopes could resolve Apollo equipment on the moon, that would be good evidence. The LRO currently in orbit plans to do just that. If the LRO resolves moon equipment, would you agree that’s good evidence for man on the moon?

          • Anything coming from NASA is not good evidence Karl. If, just for argument sake, NASA did fake the men on the moon, then we can not trust them to really show us what is on the moon even if they can see it through their telescopes. That is the problem. For every piece of evidence of the moon landing we have to trust NASA.

            The solution to this will not come from NASA. It will come when others are independently going to the moon and doing practical things there.

            I do not trust them…

            If they can do something on the moon that an ordinary observatory telescope can pick up that is a different thing. If astronomers all over the world can see the results of NASA’s handiwork on the moon that might be something…

          • STMan says:

            Hi: You make some interesting comments about 911. Maybe you should consider having a different site where that discussion could take place. I could then answer those questions there. The thing I will say about that, is that there is evidence from outside the govermnent. Such as the airline is missing that plane, the people on board are missing, including a very famous “Barbara Olson”, who made a cell phone call to her husband while the plane was being hijacked. Also there is the video that I saw that day of crash of plane parts strewn all over the area in front of the pentagon. The wings which were filled with fuel were sheared off and the explosion did mostly vapourize them. The pentagon is a very sturdy structure, and was made to withstand an attack. The plane was actually a Boeing 757 not a 747. The 757 is smaller and only has 2 engines rather than the 4 that a 747 has. But that’s certainly getting off topic of the moon landings.

            One other point is about the U.S. government. I think that you are assuming that I am an American, and therefore believe everything that they say. Well, I’m not, I live in Canada, which neighbors the U.S., but has i’t own government, not subject to the U.S.. Take the war in Iraq for example, the Canadian government disagreed, and did not take part in that war, but in Afghanistan, they did. So do I believe everything that the U.S. government (or even my own) says, of course not. Neither do most people. When governments lie to the people in truly democratic countries they are usually defeated in the next election. The whole point of my comments has been that I look at the evidence, and not just believe what any government or NASA says.

            You also comment: you also believe that a lunar lander can land on the moon firing it retro-rockets and land on the lunar surface without making even the slightest impression in the dust on the lunar surface, while we see the astronauts walking around kicking up the dust and making big footprints in the surface.

            There actually is photographic evidence of the retro rockets as it moved across the surface, and an impression where it landed. I will have to go through the photographic archive, then I will give you a list of photos that show this.

          • STMan says:

            Open a second brouser (or tab) on your computer and go to http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html This will allow you to search for and view the listed photos and also to read my comments.

            AS12-46-6781 In this photo the LM had travelled right to left before landing. You can see a path that looks wind blown, that was caused by the retro rocket. If you look at the previous 2 pictures in order you can follow the path which leads to the LM’s engine. AS12-46-6780 & AS12-46-6779.

            AS14-66-9261 Shows a depression made by the engine before it was turned off. Since the LM was still in motion to the right, and dropped the last small distance to the surface the depression caused by the engine is to the left (look just below the silver object). The whole area shows the effects of the thrust blowing dust outwards from the depression. The previous picture AS14-66-9260 confirms the direction of travel, which is opposite to the direction that the probes are pointing. The probes which are attached to the foot pads, are there to tell the astronauts when they are near the surface, by setting off a “contact light”. Once this happens they turn the engine off, and drop the rest of the way (in 1/6th gravity).

          • M Reed says:

            Speaking of deceptions, 9/11 is a fascinating example of just how a large scale event can be executed in daylight and sold to the public by the media.

            I recommend the research of Citizen Investigation Team. They have completely deconstructed the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. Check out the website: thepentaCon.com.

            After studying 9/11, it becomes clear just how dishonest the gov’t/ media can be.

            The most compelling evidence against the Apollo missions, I believe, is the swinging/ swaying effect of the astronauts while walking and running. The Apollo press conference is really suspicious too.

  38. karl says:

    ||As I have said the “proof” of man walking on the moon comes only from one source, NASA. ||

    Again, that claim has been answered. Review Stman’s final comments at a minimum:

    [So, once again: There is proof: The astronauts, who’s stories have remained consistent for 40 years. The photos, video, movie film, the rocks, dust (tested by geologists around the world), and the people inside and outside of NASA who tracked the missions (including the Soviets). And yes, even to retro reflectors.]

    You repeat the pattern as the original poster: claims that have been answered are ignored. Why, for example, should a Chinese geologist lie? You claimed moon rocks were similar to earth rocks, but I point out again a cat is similar to a dog. There are important differences in earth and moon rock composition. These differences would be obvious to geologists.

    ||You do accept that they are telling the truth||

    No. I accept that science has peer review. If NASA is lying, there is HUGE body of scientists not connected to NASA that would challenge NASA’s claims in the scientific literature. Science isn’t about having “we’re right” parties. Scientists make their name tearing down the work of other scientists.

    ||So for me the “evidence” comes down to the moon rocks and the Luna Lazar Ranging experiment. I have investigated both of these and found them to be not conclusive proof.||

    I don’t recall seeing your documentation for the moon rocks other than a vague and unsupported claim they were “similar” (similar doesn’t mean identical and as I’ve noted differences are key). Your laser ranging claim is anecdotal and easily countered by the great body of published scientific literature (one I linked to) that do find good and accurate results. You maybe have misinterpreted what you heard. Atmospheric conditions may not always be right to get a good reading. A thermometer is an accurate measure of room temperature but if conditions are not right (for example, direct sunlight is on the thermometer), you won’t get an accurate measurement. Anyway, this is where peer review is important in science. Not trusting the word of a single individual’s observations and recollections. I don’t. I trust more a body of independent research across disciplines and national borders over the word of one individual.

    ||You may consider that the moon is a reflector anyhow and it has craters. So it just may be that some of those craters are shaped like parabolic reflectors and if you fire a lazer at the right craters that will give the impression that there is a reflector on the moon. I am not saying this is the case but it is a plausible explanation why the LLR experiment may get some returns even if there are no reflectors on the moon place by the Apollo mission.||

    And maybe we’re hitting the top of UFOs parked on the moon. Your story is a just-so story. I could make one up as well. I did. Again, we come back to peer review. It would be very easy for scientists to calculate the intensity of the light returned if it came from a highly polished purpose built reflector pad or a crater. Also they would not leave the pads near such craters, thereby risking a false reading. That would be a little silly. They know the location of the pads and the craters.

    ||You can not make a conspiracy theory about something that there is clear proof for. Anyone who is reasonably fit and prepared to spend the time and money can climb Mt Everest and prove for himself that this can be done.||

    No. They are then part of the conspiracy. Anyone reasonably intelligent can study geology or optics and analyze the moon rocks or do a laser reflector experiment. If they find data that is not consistent with your moon hoax belief, then, as you’ve already claimed, they are dishonest. You merely hand wave away data that does not fit with your preconceived notion.

    ||And now, after almost 50 years, no one has been able to put men on the moon since, and even NASA, after being ordered by George Bush to put man on the moon again and given a budget to do it, had to say, “Sorry, we can’t do it. Maybe in 30 or 40 years we can do it…”||

    If you investigate what has already been written above, you will see that claim has been answered. You’re repeating it again. Please investigate the answer given and explain why it’s a poor answer.

    ||All the countries like India, China and Japan who have money and are prepared to spend it on going to the moon should be able to go. There is nothing missing. The information on how to go there is available from the Apollo missions, the money is available from the governments of US, China, India, Japan and others, but no one is able to put men on the moon?||

    I’m not sure if you’ve noticed but China is doing just that. But you just don’t strap on a rocket and go to the moon. And there is nothing missing? Based on your authority? Says who? Specific HUMAN skills are needed to be learned first hand and for every stage of space exploration. You’ll notice China is repeating the NASA state by stage approach. (Man in space, space walking, long duration orbits, etc.) Your whole premise is faulty. Note as well, China is a very proud nation. It’s going to go to the moon under its *own terms*. No doubt it has used the science and knowledge made public by NASA but China won’t simply copy NASA’s technology. Further, the Apollo project is 1960s era technology. You can’t simply put together a moon lander using Apollo blueprints. The parts aren’t available. You have to build it from technology we have now. While better, you still have to test it stage by stage for space.

    ||It is nice that Karl admitted that he has some dobut if we actually went to the moon and perhaps STMan can also consider that really there is not conclusive proof and perhaps he can keep an open mind on this issue.||

    The proof is conclusive. Every claim you’ve made has been answered. It has been answered for years.

    ||As I said I do not have the time, energy or inclination to continue this discussion but there will be no end to the suspicion that NASA faked the moon landings until we can go to the moon again on a regular basis and do practical things there.||

    People will always doubt everything touched by the government. But in science, there is an end to the suspicion NASA faked the moon landings. It’s pretty clear NASA didn’t fake it. You, alas, don’t have any science behind your position and you’re trying to argue against an event firmly rooted in science and made possible by science. You’re allowed to label non supporting evidence as being dishonest or lies. Science isn’t allowed that “out”.

    I do think you’ll be back. So, let me ask you this: the LRO currently in orbit will soon image the Apollo landing sites. If they image the LEM pad, the moon buggies, etc. would you agree this is good evidence? Or will you claim NASA faked those photos? (Someone above raised the issue that if NASA-owned telescopes could image the moon landing sites, this would be acceptable evidence. Are you on that side?)

  39. karl says:

    madhudvisa-dasa let me ask you this. 18 men have gone to the moon in successful landings. All 18 of these men have the same story. Most are professed god believers, christians. Ed Mitchell who believes in a government UFO cover up (and has gone against what some would label “The big science conspiracy” many times) himself still claims to have walked on the moon.

    Now, either these 18 christians are all liars or they’re telling the truth.

    Do you have good reason to believe all 18 are liars? And not just liars, I mean huge liars. Lies that are going to win them a horrible place in their hell. I mean how many people died in shuttle accidents (plus plane crashes) pursuing a dream they kicked off. I would hope there is a very special place in hell for such liars.

    That you discount their testimony, to me, seems to imply you’ve judged their moral character. So yes or no, are they telling the truth or are they all the worst possible liars?

    You earlier suggested science requires repeatability. I’m glad you’re concerned about the method and forms of science. In science, you take a scientist’s word for it unless you have good evidence that he’s fudged data in the past. For example, that Korean clone scientist Wang Woo Suk will never publish in a legit journal again because he was found to falsify data.

    In science, we would take Mitchel (et al) and NASA at face value. When 18 scientists all report the exact same findings, in science, you take the position the claim is more likely than unlikely. You’re free to wave your hands but you’re no longer doing good science.

    There is, in science, a thing called peer review. Scientist assume your data are true but then hammer your without mercy on your interpretation. They demand you eliminate all other possibilities. If you’ve not done that, your claims are not accepted. For example, you claimed that laser ranging is rigged and returns could possibly be coming from a crater or another light source. You assume, however, peer review has not demanded scientist eliminate the possibilities you mentioned.

    Another example: Two scientists turning on their radio telescope kept getting a strange signal no matter where they turned their scope. Before claiming this was indeed cosmic background radiation (a claim that would and did win them a nobel prize), they did everything they could to eliminate other possibilities, right down to cleaning bird poop out of their scope.

    • Madhusudana Dasa says:

      FYI

      At the following site
      http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
      they say,

      “Other DVDs available include Apollo Astronauts refusing to swear on the Bible that they went to the Moon (and Buzz Aldrin punching the investigator!)”

      So if they were good Christians as you claim and being truthful, why not swear on the bible?

      This hoax gets exposed more daily.

      • STMan says:

        Many Christians, do not believe in swearing on the bible. This comes from Matthew 5:34 – 5:37. Which basically says not to swear by anything, but to always tell the truth.
        http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/23269/eVerseID/23269

      • karl says:

        When confronted by a raving lunatic, when does the Christian faith require you to place your hand on the bible and testify before a raving lunatic? You’ll note Buzz popped the guy in the nose and the judge ruled it was entirely reasonable.

        So your contention then is because two astronauts refused to be part of some guys lame CD project, all 18 are liars? Based on what evidence?

        • Fredo says:

          Based on the sheer fact that working for NASA entails signing away your life. I’ve had to sign confidentiality waivers for a whole lot less than that.

          But then how would you explain one the astronauts’ son’s reaction in “that guy’s lame CD project”?
          I believe he went “Do you want me to call the CIA to whack him?”

          • leaford says:

            Um, confidentiality agreements mean that you CAN’T answer questions. Noone at NASA signs a answer-any-damn-fool’s-questions agreement.

  40. gaurasundar das says:

    Hare Krishna Sriman Prabhu:

    On the moon there is no air currents and the force of gravity is minimized; so that the dust raised due moon landing must lifted a big cloud of dust that should last several days of the moon. Whats the answer to this?

  41. gaurasundar das says:

    Hare Krishna Sriman Prabhu

    On the moon there is no air currents and the force of gravity is minimized; so that the dust raised due moon landing must lifted a big cloud of dust that should last several days of the moon.

    • STMan says:

      True, the moon only has about 1/6th the gravity of earth (1/6th g). When things fall on earth (at 1g) they will accelerate at a much higher rate, but the air resistance will limit the speed. Due to the density of the air, small dust particles can stay suspended for long periods of time.

      On the moon, even though the gravity is much lower, there is no atmosphere for even the smallest dust particles to stay susspended, and so they therefore, fall back to the surface fairly quickly (accelerating at 1/6th g). After the LM engine is turned off, the dust that was forced high above the surface, will only take a few seconds to fall back in the near vacuum. Therefore no long lasting dust cloud.

  42. gaurasundar das says:

    Sriman: Ok there is no any heavy atmosphere, is good to me, becouse so the dust go most hight, and either is almost any gravity to drawn the dust “fairly quickly”?

    The lies have sort legs.

    I think you are a spokes man of the nasa`s staf.

    Hare Krishna

    • STMan says:

      My answer is simply consistent with scientific fact, it would be true even if they didn’t go to the moon before, but went in the future. The dust would fall back to the surface then, even if it wasn’t NASA who went there in the future. To confirm my answer you can look at this web site and read this quote, when asked “How Fast Do Things Fall?”

      9.81 meters per second squared
      When objects fall on Earth, they accelerate at 9.8 meters per second per second — or 9.81 meters per second squared (m/s2 or ms-2) — which is known as the acceleration due to gravity. The mass (or weight) of the object does not affect the rate of acceleration; all objects accelerate downward at the same rate. exept for certain objects that have a higher air resistance and lower mass E.g. polystyrene and feathers (unless it is in a vacuum- look below)

      The above is true for objects falling in a vacuum, which is rarely the case on Earth, where air resistance works against the object and prevents it from picking up more speed. On the moon, which has no atmosphere and is a virtual vacuum, objects accelerate much more slowly than on Earth — only 1.6 m/s2 — but achieve much greater velocities in free-fall because there is no air resistance.

      End of quote from this web site.

      http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_fast_do_things_fall

      • gaurasundar das says:

        STMan (Maybe, Stret Man or maybe, Is The Mandking)?

        Well, if the slightly dust on the moon fall faster due to the vacuum of the atmosphere, then how faster should the astronauts fall when they jump and run, why then they fall slow motion?

        First of all, remember that the moon is the 5% of the size of the earth. Where on earth a man weighs 200 pounds on the moon weighs only 30 pounds as much , and if he is be free of the weight of the atmosphere pressure of 1 ton, if this man jump on the moon I assume this man goes very high. You say he will fall rapidly. You says “fairly quickly” It seems to me some thing like a fairy tale, we have to believe that becouse is a dogma of faith. Or we dont have the inteligence to understand it.

        Can we imagine what the weight of dust on the moon is? The dust will fall rapidly whith a magnetic moon and a metallic dust.

        Remember that we are fighting aganinst a conspiracy and the great powers of the world are behind it. This is the eternal war of good versus evil.

        It’s very strange that a simple Stret man is so fervent fan of NASA, and coincidentally use this particular name and not another alias. These kinds of behavior are not of an ordinary common man.

        Another thing when the NASA says that in the moon is about 200 degress of temperature every body understand “Of the atmosphere” bot you answers by the NASA and defends they and says: “Not they reffers to the foor of the moon.” Why the NASA never sayd “the temperature of the floor.”?
        Hare Krishna

  43. Michael Agnew says:

    So, the only casualties where on Apollo 13. Funny, I could have sworn they all returned home safely. Makes you wonder about all the other claims this bozo has made. Oh and by the way, the reason the flag was fluttering was because knowing there was no appreciable atmosphere on the moon, NASA had the foresight to place wires in the flag to give it the appearance of fluttering.

  44. JSBlink69 says:

    LRO Images of the Apollo 11 landing site, however I am certain that based on the previous loads of complete ignorant dribble coming from the hoax proponents this will have little effect on there theories.

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/main/index.html

  45. Steve says:

    The new lunar orbitor has just returned photographs of the apollo landing sites.

  46. chris says:

    I am a firm believer that it is all a hoax. And Steve do you know who runs the Lunar orbitor? Yeah thats right NASA. Of course there going to fake more pictures with all the controversy. Great article buy the way.

  47. McB says:

    Interesting article. I love conspiracy theories!

    But, Dude, CHECK YOUR GRAMMAR!!!!

    example:
    The cameras had no white meters or view finders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing.
    —FEET???? should be FEAT
    There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless.
    — THERE?????? should be THEIR

    • Yes. It is interesting. Thanks for the spelling corrections, I have fixed these, if you notice anything else let me know.

      Madhudvisa dasa

  48. lapukman says:

    “Well, if the slightly dust on the moon fall faster due to the vacuum of the atmosphere, then how faster should the astronauts fall when they jump and run, why then they fall slow motion?”

    I’m no scientist, but I think they fall at the same speed, if the dust goes up high for say 60 meters, the dust would still fall on the moon in less than a minute, so no dust cloud will form for days.

    As for the astronauts falling slow motion, I think because they did not jump so high, probably they could not bend their knees to jump high, probably using just the force of their foot to “hop” around, hence, they would fall to the surface of the moon at the same speed as the dust would fall back. Well, just my theory though, I don’t have time to research :-)

    • lapukman says:

      Well, not at the same speed but rate of acceleration … sorry.

      I’m no firm believer, but somehow, some of my doubts are being answered now. Thanks to this site.

  49. Hoax Man says:

    One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

    Who was really the first man on the moon?

  50. tyna says:

    I don’t believe they really went to the moon, why are they just recovering the camera after 40yrs ah ah ah. It was all fabricated.

  51. brandon says:

    LISTEN, the landings were real and here is why. ill make a few rational points.
    1) the heat argument. on the moon since there is no air, there is no heat transfer. the only way for things to get hot is thermal radiation, direct sunlight contact. spacesuits were white to reflect the suns rays. so they didn’t burn up.
    2) the dust. there is no air on the moon. so there is no air resistance for the dust and it falls back immediately. the dust wont float around unless there is no gravity at all.
    3) the shadows. since we have established that the moons surface is really reflective, it reflected onto the landers and reflected back to the ground making the shadows appear that way in pictures.
    4) reason we havent been back to the moon is that its not practical and because of budget cuts. we are developing technology now to go back. the reason its taking so long is because we are not going to use apollo era tech. were making new stuff to use and to learn how to live on the moon for longer periods of time so we can go to mars.
    5)the hubble telescope is designed to take pictures of things very far away. the resolution on it wont allow it to take pictures of things so up close such as the moon and the equipment on it. its to powerful. try putting your hand right in front of a powerful telescope, can you adjust it to see your hand well? probably not.
    6) who are you going to believe, a few conspiracy theorists with no proof, or thousands of scientists. think about it, you are basing your beliefs on a few people, but not believing the facts from alot of scientists and even the russians.

    7) you cant bounce back a laser from the moons surface since it will scatter from all the dust. its not a smooth surface.
    8) the moon cameras. the video cameras were only allowed to draw a small amount of amps so they ran at only 10 frames per second and had bad resolution. there was not much power available to the moon lander. also the film was protected from radiation by shielding.
    9) the astronauts flew quickly through the van allen belt so there was not much exposure to radiation.
    10) you cant see the stars because they don’t give off enough light for them to be picked up on the film. its not hard to comprehend. and also because of the light reflected off the ground obscured the stars. like in a bright city.
    11) USSR didnt go to the moon because they were beat to it and couldn’t afford it. remember they went bankrupt. like i said before, the reason its taking us so long to get back is because we haven’t needed to go back until lately and we are bringing new tech in order to stay on the moon for a week or longer at a time with crew capsules 3 times the size of Apollo landers.
    12) i am 25 and i believe my generation is a bunch of idiots and only believe what they want to hear not what the evidence tells us. im pissed that people cant appreciate human ingenuity and think NASA would fake a landing. we got there so fast to beat the soviets. technology was increased very fast in order to do that. in world war two the same thing happened. technology was advanced very quickly because of the war. it pushed people to the limits because they had a need to do it fast.
    13) if you believe that its all a hoax then you think the government blew up the twin towers to?? you all must be really bored and have alot of time on your hands. you cant fake a lunar rover in low gravity on video, especially in the 60′s. or people walking in low gravity. maybe on a space ship. but can you drive a rover on a space ship??
    14) yes the odds were against the astronauts. they almost didnt make it. they almost aborted the landing twice but they did it. it was almost impossible but so was making the pyramids even though engineers say now that it was impossible with the technology that was available to the Egyptians then. keep an open mind.
    15) The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.
    16) there is no crater because the fine dust is only 6 inches at most in depth there below that there is hard packed soil. also the lander didnt need to fire its thrusters that hard because it slowly descended to the moon because of the low gravity. it didnt need to suddenly fire its thrusters hard and make a rapid stop.

    if i have any other points to make i will post them. like i said keep an open mind. if your mind is open to the hoax theory then you can consider that we actually went to the moon. we did build a atomic bomb in the 1940′s. i think splitting the atom and creating that much power is more unbelievable then landing on the moon. same with the pyramids and all the other human achievements due to our ingenuity. peace out.

    • LBoogie says:

      Nice explanations Branden,
      but you STILL failed to answer the most important questions ( just like a politician ) the photo’s the photo’s the photo’s !!, are just too good

      AND… WHO shot the footage of the 2 astronauts OUTSIDE the luner lander as they stepped off the ladder, the camera was a bout 30ft away too far to be attached to the lander… or did one of them run with it, set it up, and then run back, and THNE pretend it was their first time stepping on the moon… ok maybe there was a little robot droid that was controlled from the lander that went out there first, set up the camera and started shooting…..even so…wheres the foorage of the droid going out there…oh but of course, the age old excuse, you lost the footage, someone accidentally destroyed it, the same that happens to EVERYTHING else once people start to question its originality

  52. McG says:

    I read over half of the way down and it got very repetitive. STMan does not only use NASA’s point of view as evidence he takes other countries points of view and other people’s points of view of NASA’s evidence (pictures, video, moon rocks etc) If I were to create a fake picture of a UFO and NASA said it was real STMan would not automatically say it was real. Scientists all over the world would have to look and study it to make sure it isn’t photoshoped. madhudvisa-dasa, you said yourself
    “But how do you know that what NASA is showing you is a photo of the earth from the moon? I can make a model of the earth and set up some clouds about it and organize the lighting and take a photo. And you can not tell if that is taken from the moon or taken by me in my studio of my model of the moon.”
    If you can do this while using technology only used in the 1960′s and make it look as real as NASA’s, then I will believe you. My guess is you can’t. and since the technology is from the 60′s it won’t be expensive to fake if its just models, my ipod has more memory than an entire room sized computer had in the 1960′s. One last thing, everyone is talking about how easy it would be for NASA to just build another and go again right now. I guess you haven’t been paying attention but NASA’s budget has been cut hardcore since the 60′s. look up NASA budget on google in 1966 NASA recieved 5.5% of the federal budget. For 2010 they have a proposed budget of 0.52%, that is a HUGE amount of money. They no longer have the budget to take on such large endevors so quickly.

    • karl says:

      ||If you can do this while using technology only used in the 1960’s and make it look as real as NASA’s, then I will believe you. My guess is you can’t. and since the technology is from the 60’s it won’t be expensive to fake if its just models, my ipod has more memory than an entire room sized computer had in the 1960’s.||

      Indeed. You reinforce my point that moon hoax proponents are not actually EVER answering the explanations offered.

      Moon Hoax: We should see stars in the photos.

      NASA stooge paid off by the space lizards: No. Because when you’re exposing for a bright foreground object like a moon surface reflecting naked sun light, you can’t capture the tiny light of stars using a camera’s exposure time.

      Wait 1 month.

      Moon Hoax: But we should see stars!

      *face palm*

      You have to now tackle the counter claim. Why are STman’s counter claims poor explanations for why the various anomalies are not anomalies but can be reasonably explained?

      STman explains.
      The moon hoax believers simply then shift to some new chestnut.

      As you noted McG, a very powerful counter is to set up conditions and demonstrate that the anomalies are truly anomalies and can’t be explained by the hypothesis man really landed on the moon and two guys walked around on the moons surface.

      China wants to be the first nation to walk on the moon, not the second. If the evidence is so good, China with all its scientific resources could blow the “myth” out of the water. It’s only three days to the moon with a space probe. It could easily assemble a team of international scientists of firm believers in NASA’s “story” to oversee a Chinese overflight of the apollo 11 site and image the site. These scientists would be compelled to accept photos showing no landing site. China could then claim to be the first to walk on the moon in the coming decade.

      Hmmmm. China does not do this because NASA’s claim is beyond scientific dispute. Or maybe they’re part of the conspiracy too!

      The TV show Myth Busters, I will point out again, tested what the moon hoaxers should be doing for themselves instead of following around old men into airport washrooms with a bible and trying to get them to swear on the bible. Much of the footage is available on youtube. They tested the claims and counter claims. They found the counter claims by, you know, actual scientists like Phil Plait to be supported by the experiment.

      Moon hoax believers NEVER do this. Why?

      The writer of the original blog’s claims have been debunked for a decade. The debunkings are easily and freely available on the internet a short google away. No one has ever explained why he did not practice good scholarship and researched the actual counters to these claims and then offered detailed explanations why the counter claims do no violence to the moon hoax position. This would have been a much stronger post. Good scholarship demands you not only marshal evidence for your position but anticipate all extant decade old objections and then crush those objections. Real scientists do this. If they didn’t they’d be laughed out of their jobs.

      Does anybody still believe we should see stars in the photos taken on the moon? Given the counter claim is exposure time, can you offer a scientific explanation why cameras of that era should be able to expose both a bright foreground and dim starlight?

  53. McG says:

    Ok sorry one more, I just read gaurasundar das’s last post and had to comment. Gravity works the same on every object, so if you drop a 15 pound bowling ball and a 200 pound man from a tall building or an airplane 5,000 feet in the air at the same time on earth, both will hit the ground at the same time. Same is true if you do it on the moon, only it isn’t as fast as on earth, less gravity. But wait if you drop a feather and a bowling ball on earth the bowling ball will hit first, why? because the feather catches air. what is the moon lacking? air. So since air or wind is not in affect on the moon the things that normaly catch air and can hang around for a longer period time such as dust (drive on a dirt road in dry conditions it gets dusty from the air holding particles up), or a feather do not hang around as long and fall straight to the surface of the moon. I’m sorry if this is hard to understand I am horrible at explaining things I guess an easier way to look at it is on earth air resistence makes dust fall slower but doesn’t slow down heavy things as much, but on the moon their is no air resistence so only gravity is affecting the objects so since the moon is smaller (has less of a gravitational force) a man will fall slower but dust will fall faster. does that make sence?

  54. DiTH says:

    Whats NASA’s explanation for the “first step” filming and the apollo 16 liftoff? Just being curious.

    • STMan says:

      There was a black and white video camera in the instrument bay, which deployed when he pulled on a D-ring. It only showed his upper body. There was also a color 16mm film camera which was aimed out the window looking down on him. Before Aldrin came out he set the 16mm film camera to shoot a only one frame per second to make it last longer. Armstrong later moved the b&W video camera to a tripod, so that people back on earth could watch the E.V.A..

      As for the liftoff, there was a color video camere on the lunar rover, which transmitted back to earth. On apollo 15 the camera didn’t move, so we only see the ascent stage until it moves out of the picture. On apollo 16 they remotely tracked it, but lost it quickly. The best liftoff video, is from apollo 17. I just saw an interview in a documentary, with Ed Fendell, the man who remotely controlled the camera, and he said that they had calculated when to move the camera ahead of time. So rather than watching the delayed video from the moon, he was looking at a piece of paper with the tracking info on it, which told him when and how fast to pan the camera upwards.

    • Clavius says:

      Remote-control cameras. The designs for them are quite easily obtainable, were published widely at the time, and are completely comprehensible to any engineer.

    • Jon says:

      First step is easy. The equipment bay that stored the TV camera was to the left of the ladder. When the bay is deployed the camera points at the ladder. Probably not a coincedence. In this photo you can see the small round black lens area of the camera pointing right at the ladder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ApolloTVCameraOnLunarModule.jpg

      For the Apollo 16 liftoff the camera pan was controlled from mission control. There’s a scene in “From the Earth to the Moon” miniseries where the technician controlling it is listening to the countdown and starts the pan a little less than 3 seconds before the countdown hits zero to account for the transmission time from the moon to Earth and back.

  55. Dave says:

    These are the same people that think wrestling is real

  56. lapukman says:

    Ok, why can’t I view the older comments. I click on “Older Comments” link but I get forwarded to the same page? Any help?

    • STMan says:

      You are right the link doesn’t work for me either, it just is a link to this same page.

  57. STMan says:

    This an example from a hoax web site (by David Percy & Jack White).
    http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_5.html

    The 1st picture reads “Something is out of scale here!”.
    The insert at the left shows Aldrin standing near the flag, ths smaller insert in the middle shows him standing near the solar wind experiment, and implies that they are miniatures, because they are not the same size. If the solar wind experiment is further away when the shot was taken and therefore so was “Buzz Aldrin”, it is obvious to me (and probably most people) that he should appear smaller on that photo.

    The Next photo says “Light from all sides”. The blue arrows are where he believes that the light from the source is coming from. This would only be true if the sun was right on the horizon (at sun set or sun rise). The light is actually coming from a much higher angle. The long narrow shadow to the right of the astronauts shadow, is from an object out of the picture. If you stand between the two rails on a rail road track (which are of course parallel) and take a photo looking straight ahead, the rails will not look parallel on the photo, this is the same effect here. The rails would only look parallel if you were above them looking straight down. Also a shadow of an object such as a flag pole, will cast a shadow at a different angle if it is leaning to the left or right, vs, if it is perfectly vertical. The purple arrow point to center of the photo, and implies that the shadow should be there. This would only be true if the sun was straight behind the astronaut in order to cast the shadow to that point on the surface. If the astronaut would have aimed the camera, far enough to the left this would have happened.

    The next set of pictures says “Two different views” The picture of AS11-37-5458, is being displayed backwards (like a mirror image) in order to make it look like the thruster is the same one as in the other photo. Is this an honest mistake, or an intentional act by the web site to deceive people into believing their theory? If they discover this error (and they are honest) they should delete it, but what if it’s in their video or book? What then? This proves that more research should be done before on their part before making these claims. Would you not agree?

    Their web site is filled with many more photos, and their so called “analysis”, most of which it seems, shows their lack of understanding of perspective and lighting in photography. Shouldn’t we ask for more than this if we are going to overturn history, and say that no one has ever gone to the moon.

  58. Lohocla says:

    Gravity works the same on every object, so if you drop a 15 pound bowling ball and a 200 pound man from a tall building or an airplane 5,000 feet in the air at the same time on earth, both will hit the ground at the same time

    Technically, thats inaccurate. Drag between a man and a bowling ball is different, so there would be a difference between the rate of descent in an atmosphere.

    You’re correct in the other tho, a 20lb ball and a feather will fall at the same rate in a vaccum (which, i think, is the point you were trying to make).

    As for duplicating the footage and whatnot, based soley on what I’ve read here,

    Loh

  59. Lohocla says:

    16) there is no crater because the fine dust is only 6 inches at most in depth there below that there is hard packed soil. also the lander didnt need to fire its thrusters that hard because it slowly descended to the moon because of the low gravity. it didnt need to suddenly fire its thrusters hard and make a rapid stop.

    Kinda have to disagree with you there bro. Granted, the moon is about 1/6th of the gravity of earth, 1/6th of 32399 lbs is still more than 5000 lbs. Dunno how much physics you know, but there’d be a heck of a lot of thrust to not only slow it down but to do so in a manner that is in any stretch of the imagination “gradual”.

    At this stage of the debate, I’m at the stage almost everyone else is. Going by after the fact events and having to rely on (because I mostly dont care) what each side “says”.

    No real interest either way, just find most of it mildly amusing.

    • STMan says:

      I believe you are quoting the lunar module’s weight when fully loaded with fuel. Since most of the fuel was consumed before touchdown, the LM weight would be much less, (maybe close to half) and so would be the thrust necessary for the final seconds of decent. One other point, is that since they are in a vacuum, the exhaust from the engine spreads out more. Finally the engine bell on the descent stage has a diameter of 5 feet, meaning the thrust is spread over aproximately 2800 square inches. Which will end up being around one pound per square inch of thrust on the surface. So just how big a crater do you want?

      • Loholca says:

        Wouldnt know, wouldnt really care either way really, just pointing out seemingly factual anomolies based on what people are writing (either side really)

        I haven’t really looked at the pics in years, but even diffused on a 5foot diameter the scatter from 16800 square inches of dust (as you pointed out, 2600 square inches x 6 inch depth also helpfully pointed out) is a hell of a lot of dust and would look like a crater (albeit a 6 inch one) :)

        Loh

  60. baba says:

    did man really walk on the moon because it looked fake

    • STMan says:

      There was nine flights to the moon, six landed. Twelve men walked on the moon. You may have just seen the black & white video from apollo 11, but there is much better color video from some of the later flights.

  61. Phil says:

    Man never walked on the moon, there is too much evidence against the landing to have happened, i have not studied the thing but have just taken in whaat other people have concluded from studying. All disbelievers have the same obvious conclusions such as photography and camera work, but the people who believe that man stepped on the moon seem to contridict themselves, one person will say theres dust, then the other will say theres not supposed to be dust, lets just face it, its sand. Ever since the day they ‘set foot on the moon’ people have said its bull, why is there is so much questioning of wether it actually happened could the US not have sent another to the moon, they just dont want to look like idiots when it all goes wrong with an extra 40 years of experience and technology, lets all be honest, it never happened, catch a grip. . . Neil armstrong also told the people that the mood was infact made of cheese. .. idiot.

    • STMan says:

      Name one piece of convincing evidence against the landings. Everyone who understands the physics of rockets, low gravity and a vacuum, will all agree, that there is dust, just watch the films of the landings, they are conclusive. Not everyone who believes in the moon landings can give a physics lesson, so those contradictions are irrelevant.

      • Fredo says:

        STMan, you’re full of it…
        you name all these things yet you can’t even prove them… you weren’t there personally so how can you be so staunchly fighting and arguing…

        I believe the say “I’ll only believe it with my OWN eyes” applies

        and you may also want to stop trusting your government blindly.

        • STMan says:

          No need for personal attacks. If you disagree that’s fine, but you should specify what you disagree with.

          If you had read all of my comments, you would know that they aren’t my government, since I am in a different country, so there is no need for me to blindly trust them.

      • gaurasundar das says:

        I was a school boy in the days before the supposed trip to the moon, when suddenly radio, newspapers and television had a huge worldwide publicity about the greatest event in human history: “The trip to the moon.” In the mouth of the whole world were the most currents information on this unusual event. In schools for pupils of all levels the homework was the same, “The trip to the moon.” All the walls of the classrooms were filled with graphics and scale models of rockets, lunar module, that were like a brainwashing and as child one could not be more than marvelous the great unity of thought around a single matter.

        When finally, after too much waiting: “The lunar landing.” And just at midnight!

        Nobody could let pass the good fortune to see that.

        The whole world was praying and begging “God please, protect the astronauts, watch each of theirs steps and bring them back safely.”

        The excitement knew no limits.

        At last the moon landing: And the famous sentence: “A small step for man but a giant leap for mankind.” Nothing more cold! And everything went as it was set to lines, anything wonderful or extraordinary astronauts grabbed lunar samples, they did what has do and goodbye, everything went perfect.

        After that, the faces of people were disappointed as the people when they see a bad movie and say, “Give me my money back.”

        We have seen others odysseys as when a few simple adventurers reach Mount Everest, the major manifestations of human emotions, tears, hugs, rolling on the floor, ecstasy.

        In contrast to the lunar odyssey travel, everything seemed a robotic.

        I believe that as much as scientists or astronauts however may be great warriors; in the bottom of theirs chest should have a little heart, and when he stepped on the moon should said “Oh my God I can not believe this is beyond ofdescription, I feel my mind turning, I’ want to kiss the floor, my parents who are there down on earth, I want you know that I love you! I dedicate this trip to all the children of the world, to my girlfriend a hug, I feel a knob in my throat, please forgive me, I can´t talk. Thanks to all my comrades, forgive me my offenses, oh please but I can not control!

  62. loboloco says:

    they even wacked a few golf balls on the moon, that is so retro cheesy junk, people were naive them days, they believed anything on the idiot box, they wouldnt be able to get away with it nowadays thats why they dont go back even though technology has advanced. I would have thought by now we would have colonized the moon after the first moon landing. The more excuses they come up with the more credibilty they lose.

  63. mikeyikey says:

    nobody really walked on the moon. and if he was the first man on the moon then who taped him walking there would’ve had to be two men on the moon and if they could travel to the moon back then why can’t we do it now with technology being more up to date

    • STMan says:

      There was two men on the moon, each of the six times that they went.

      • Geoff Boxer says:

        STMan: There was nine flights to the moon, six landed. Twelve men walked on the moon. Can you please explain

  64. Gramo says:

    Who you fooling now USA??? This is going to be the most embarrassing thing that the great USA will regret when this is proven to be a hoax. And i am telling all of you that the day is getting nearer and nearer. Hahaha!!!

  65. gaurasundar das says:

    Karl, Hare Krishna.

    Your question is very good and I think you are a genuine seeker.

    ||If Fox TV had a special that said Srila Prabhupada’s life’s work was a hoax, the reaction would be… what exactly? ||

    If you find that your master is a hoax, then abandon him, denounce him and seek a genuine and authorized master.

    There is certainly a difference between the two classes of seekers of the truth.

    Empirical science is a fraud to discover the truth, because this science is based on relative truths and the highest scientific conclusions will always be another relative truth.

    So whenever a new theory emerges that displaces the old. Empirical science leads us to conclusions not based on common sense, are always hanging on like monkeys, and when this thing fails, the science falls. As humans we need rational answers. For example “StMan” who claims to be a fanatic (religion without philosophy) of science, based his entire belief in the formula “1 square seg.” Indeed it is irrational; because we know that the square time doesn’t exist in this dimension. So as there is not “1 at square” in math because 1×1=1. In conclusion, 1 sec. squared = 1 sec. That is a nonsense, which does not mean anything. In mathematics there is no square root either because 0.33 x 0.33 = 0.99 is not one. So the fundamental math’s unit is imperfect, making mathematics useless as a tool to know the truth.

    Sócrates said that God speaks through mathematics, mathematics depends on God, but God does not depend on mathematics. The science can’t deny the existence of God. And for science is impossible to prove the existence of God mathematically. The existence of the relative truth is the proof of the existence of God, the embodiment of the supreme the absolute truth.

    When science discovers the personality of God, then we can believe in science.

    “Persons addicted to hypothetical truth, should distinguish the ocean of All truths. These are the absolute truths of spiritual science and not the conclusion of imaginary speculation under the thralldom of the deluding energy of Godhead.” (Bhaktisiddhanta)

    “The materialistic demeanor cannot possibly stretch to the transcendental autocrat who is ever inviting the fallen conditioned souls to associate with Him through devotion or eternal serving mood.” (Bhaktisiddhanta)

    “Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.” Bhagavad Gita 4.34

    “Although only his own interest is the centre of their lives, the whole world suffers from four kinds of defects such as: “1. Make mistakes, 2. are in illusion, 3. has imperfect senses. 4. Have the tendency to deceive.” (Veda)

    The truth that has been revealed by the scriptures is free from contaminations. But the realizations of the seekers of the knowledge of these realities are with or without fault in accordance with the degree of their individual realization.

    This human form of life is an opportunity to inquire about the Supreme true. You are invited to continue inquiring. If you get an ideology better than this, please let me know.

    Sadhu Sanga ki yai

    • STMan says:

      I am only commenting on this one because, you used me as an example in this quote:

      “For example “StMan” who claims to be a fanatic (religion without philosophy) of science, based his entire belief in the formula “1 square seg.” Indeed it is irrational; because we know that the square time doesn’t exist in this dimension. So as there is not “1 at square” in math because 1×1=1. In conclusion, 1 sec. squared = 1 sec. That is a nonsense, which does not mean anything. In mathematics there is no square root either because 0.33 x 0.33 = 0.99 is not one. So the fundamental math’s unit is imperfect, making mathematics useless as a tool to know the truth.”

      I have never claimed to ba a fanatic of science (as you say). However, I do use it along with mathematics when necessary, to answer scientific questions, on this site relating to the moon landings. I believe the formula that you were quoting is the one relating to acceleration due to gravity. Yes, after 1 sec., you square 1, and get one. Meaning an object after one second of free fall on earth (in a vacuum) would be moving 9.8 metres per second. Hardly nonsense as you say. Also the square root of 1 is not .33, it is actually .3333 with an infinite number of 3′s. Believe it or not if we square that number it does in deed come out to one. If we can’t comprehend infinity, then I guess, it wouldn’t make any sense (therefore nonsens).

      So without getting too deep into your religious debate, I don’t see why any person who is religious, has to distance themselves from any truth, even if it comes from science. After all the computer that you are using, only came to being because of math and science, and the people who made the necessary discoveries, relating to those.

      • STMan says:

        Correction: I don’t know what I was thinking. The square root of one is of course one. It is one third that gives .3333 with an infinite number of 3′s. Sorry for the error.

  66. M says:

    (repost because first post did not show the NASA URL)

    NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO,
    Sees and Photographs Apollo Landing Sites

    July 2009 low resolution pictures available now.
    2x-3x better pics to come in August 2009.

    Here are the current low resolution pictures of stuff we
    left behind on the moon during Apollo moon missions.

    see the pictures at the NASA web site:
    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

  67. May says:

    If there was a man landing the moon, honestly didnt change my parents life, and if it wasnt, surely is not changing mine.
    I dont care about men landing anywhere. People should spend more money on the own protection of Earth. The only place so far where we can live. Who wants to live in the moon, where theres nothing to die for?.

  68. William D'Avanzo says:

    People forget about the laser reflectors planted on the moon. With the right equipment, anyone can point a laser at the right spots on the moon and measure the time it takes to reflect back and thus measure the distance between the earth and the moon.

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

    • Dear William

      You have no idea what you are taking about at all!! This is another fairy story. Even NASA with the best equipment can not reliably get returns from the so-called reflectors on the moon. I have written about this before. I have sat with lab technicians who perform this experiment in Texas and they can go for days or weeks without getting any significant returns at all and the returns are so low that they may also be caused by something other than reflectors on the moon.

      If they find a photon of light somewhere near the wavelength of the lazer in the telescope at precisely the moment they expect to get a reflection from the moon they assume it is from the apparent reflectors on the moon. But it may not be. It could be just a reflection from the moon. It could be light from any source.

      They are firing light at the moon which we all know is a reflector. By the time it gets to the moon it spreads out over 2 square miles. If they get a reflection at all they assume it is coming for a one foot square reflector supposedly put up there by us. But the whole moon for 2 square miles will be reflecting the lazer light back. And there will be spots on the moon that are more reflective than others. So even if there were no reflectors you may be able fire a lazer at the moon and find spots where you could get a reflection back.

      So if you fire a lazer at the moon and get a reflection back this is not proof that there are one foot square reflectors on the moon…. The moon is a reflector…

      This is from their own website:



      The pointing challenge

      To concentrate as much laser power as possible onto the reflector array, we must ensure that the beam leaving the telescope is as collimated (parallel, non-diverging) as possible. We use a laser both because we can get ultra-short pulses of light from a laser, and also because the light from a laser is extraordinarily directional—not diverging the way a flashlight, or even searchlight, would. Even so, the turbulent atmosphere distorts the beam, imparting a divergence of about one arcsecond (sometimes more). One arcsecond is 1/3600th of a degree, or the angular size of a quarter about five kilometers (about 3 miles) away. At the distance of the moon, this angle translates to 1.8 kilometers (just over a mile). Though this is large compared to the size of the reflector (most of the light is wasted—never hitting the reflector), it is still a challenge to point and maintain the laser beam on this tiny patch of the moon.

      As the above schematic illustrates, the beam we send to the moon diverges (much exaggerated) due to the earth’s atmosphere. Only about one part in 30 million of the light we send to the moon is lucky enough to actually strike the targeted reflector. But the reflector is composed of small corner cubes, and for reasons related to the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, the light returning from each of these small apertures is forced to have a divergence (called diffraction). In the case of the Apollo reflectors, this divergence is in the neighborhood of 8 arcseconds. This means that the beam returning to the earth has a roughly 15 kilometer (10 mile) footprint when it returns to the earth. We scrape up as much of this as our telescope will allow, but a 3.5 meter aperture will only get about one in 30 million of the returning photons—coincidentally the same odds of hitting the reflector in the first place.

      Staggering Odds

      Imagine you won the super-jackpot multi-state lottery against 30-million-to-one odds. You’d be pretty happy—elated, even. Now imagine someone told you that there was only a one in 30 million chance that the money would find its way to your bank account! This is the situation we face. Only those photons (“particles” of light) that make it back to our telescope are worth anything to us: these are what we need to complete the measurement. Money in the bank. Pretty staggering, those odds. Combining the two, there is a one in a quadrillion chance that a photon will strike the reflector and return to the telescope to tell the tale. Luckily, we buy 300 quadrillion lottery tickets (photons) with each and every laser pulse. Other losses play a role in addition to the divergence losses, so in the end, we expect a few (1–5) detected return photons per pulse. But at 20 pulses per second, the photons add up fast.


      What’s so hard about it all?

      Lots of things have to be working just right to get photons back from the lunar reflectors. The laser beam has to be very well collimated. The laser beam must be pointing precisely at the reflector—which cannot be seen directly, so it’s a blind pointing. The detector must also be looking at the exact spot on the moon corresponding to the reflector. This is independent from the laser pointing, so not guaranteed to be bang-on even if the laser is. Now the moon (when illuminated) is very bright. And we’re looking for a mere few photons from the reflector. But we know the wavelength of the laser, and can let only that color light into the detector. We also know where on the moon the light is coming from, so we can reject all moonlight except for that right around the reflector. And most importantly, we know when to expect the laser pulse to return, to few-nanosecond precision, typically. So we only turn on our detector for 100 nanoseconds (100 billionths of a second) around the expected time. We can schedule this to nanosecond precision. We have about 50 shots on the way to or from the moon at any time, so we have a “schedule book” telling our equipment when to open up the detector. Imagine trying to keep your personal calendar commitments to nanosecond precision!

      • Alexander Cooke says:

        Actually, most of the surface of the moon scatters the photons, the reflector sends them right back. The photons that hit the detector are extremely close to being parallel and so don’t spread out much more.

        • That is true but… The reflector is only one foot square and the light from the lazer is hitting an area on the moon spreading out over at least 10 miles. So if you try and use your brain instead of just listening to the drivel from NASA and imagine if you have light reflecting from an area of say 10 miles across and you have a one square foot reflector somewhere in there then what difference is it going to make? You have to use some common sense here if you have it. And add to this that reflectors are not necessary for doing this lazer ranging. They do it with satellites that have no reflectors. They just point the lazer at satellites that are not particularly reflective and are quite small [of course much closer than the moon] and they get returns from the satellites… So it is better to use your brain rather than just being a mouthpiece for the NASA propaganda.

  69. San says:

    If we agree apollo was indeed landed on the moon, then how was it able to accurately lift off the moon and came back to earth. All we agree upon the gravity of moon is 1/6 of the earth. Then indeed we need to have thrust of 1/6 of the earth to lift off from the moon, and then the vertical travel path. Today’s world rocket launching is so sophisticated and highly complex and simple do not agree that we have a technology to lift off from a remote place like moon with 17ton machine and crew members

    • STMan says:

      Only the ascent stage lifted off from the moon, so it was even lighter (in 1/6 gravity).

      Because they had done the calculations, they new exactly when to lift off from the surface in order to rendezvous with the command module that was in orbit around the moon. NASA also gave them the correct time to fire the command module’s engine in order to escape the moons gravity and head back to earth. NASA tracked them on the way and gave them the necessary info to do minor course corrections in order to hit the atmosphere at the correct angle for a proper re-entry.

      A few years earlier two Gemini space capsule’s were launched at different times, and met up in low earth orbit, in order to prove that it could be done, for the later moon missions.

      Look how complex the space shuttle is, and it first flew in 1981, only 9 years after the last moon landing.

  70. karl says:

    Another claim by the original poster that has been answered already and easily disproved by a simple search of a NASA photo archive:

    ||By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that’s just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. **Not one** was badly composed or even blurred.||

    Not one?

    How about at least two (and plenty more if you care to look):

    http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/the-apollo-moon-hoax-all-the-photos-are-way-too-good/

    I’ll pose a third question to the moon hoaxers, given the above, do you still believe this is a valid claim? Is so, why are the photos found at that link well composed?

    No one has answered my previous question about there should be stars in the photos, as claimed by the original poster. The claim has been answered. I’ll take it from this point that the moon hoax believers here accept that this is a false claim. If you don’t agree, please speak up.

    Additionally, there was a claim about dust and a blast crater. We should see dust on the lander foot pads, we should see a blast crater. Those claims are answered here:

    http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/the-apollo-moon-hoax-why-is-there-no-blast-crater-under-the-lunar-module/
    http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/the-apollo-moon-hoax-why-is-there-no-lunar-dust-on-the-landers-footpads/

    (I can’t seem to find my previous post on this topic and gather the mod didn’t approve it. I’ll try again.)

    To summarize the links.

    No dust: no atmosphere on the moon. Dust doesn’t billow. Goes straight up and down. It would have settled before the lander landed.

    No crater: The engine was throttled back before landing. The PSI from the engine are less than the PSI of a human foot print.

    The math is available in the links. As I noted in my unposted comment, there are certainly scientists within the Krishna fold who would be able and happy to review those figures, if you doubt them. Yes?

    So we have, by my count, three major claims with not only counter claims but claims answered by both math and by actual experimentation (again refer to my comments about Myth Busters).

    • Hello Karl

      Please do not take any offense at what I am going to say as I am not saying it about you personally, but about the “believers” of the “Man on the Moon” in general.

      I do not discount the possibility that man may have walked on the moon. It may have happened. However, I have not seen sufficient evidence that convinces me of this so I do not “believe.” As it is there is no solid proof that man walked on the moon, certainly nothing is there except what has been given by NASA, and if NASA is covering up the fact that they could not actually put men on the moon then everything they provide could have been easily fabricated. And as far as I have considered the evidence and particularaly because my spiritual master, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, considered it very unlikely that NASA put men on the moon, and that he has given many reasons from the Vedic scriptures that make such a moon walk seem very unlikely, my feeling at this point in time is the whole thing was a very elaborate hoax. Perhaps the greatest hoax ever.

      The points that you make have been made over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and again. I have heard them all before and remain unconvinced. Everything you say all rests on having faith in NASA, believing in NASA. You have that faith, I do not believe [in NASA].

      This is why I wrote a posting a while ago calling the “man on the moon” belief a religious belief. Because you “believe” in NASA. That is proof for you. I do not “believe” in NASA so do not accept what NASA says as proof.

      The tendency is for everyone to cheat. The tendency is for someone to already believe in something and then to search for “proof” that supports his belief. You believe that man walked on the moon and you want to prove it. So you focus on the things that you feel you can prove and ignore the things that you can no prove.

      You go on and on about the stars. And it is quite obvious that there will be no stars in the sky if the sun is out and the camera is set to take pictures in the sunlight. This is obviously a fact and is a mistake in the original posting.

      However, astronauts walk around the moon and they make very clear footprints in the lunar surface. At least an inch or so deep. Maybe more. The lunar lander makes no impression whatsoever in the moon’s surface. This is obviously a mistake on the part of NASA. The lunar lander is much heavier than a man and must make at least as much of an impression in the lunar surface as a man makes. You do not address this point. You make other points which you think you can prove.

      All of these “explanations” that the lunar lander can land on the moon with retro rockets firing to slow its descent without making even the slightest impression in the dust on the surface of the moon is complete nonsense. There is no way a heavy object like that can land on sand without even slightly disturbing the sand and without the rockets making any impression whatsoever in the sand. That you think this is possible and that you give “scientific” proof for it is really outrageous and defies common sense completely.

      It is like STMan when, just to test his faith in the government, I asked him about the 757 airplane that was supposed to have flown into the Pentagon. I pointed out that the whole 757 plane somehow went inside an 8 foot diameter hole and then disappeared. A 757 can not fit through an 8 foot diameter hole. It has two very long wings and on those wings there are two huge engines. And a 757 plane is much bigger than 8 feet in diameter. But STMan, a true believer, believes the official story. That the plane, the passangers, the engines of the plane, the winges, the luggage and all the other junk that one would expect to see at a plane crash site “vaporized.” STMan believes that a 757 plane flew into the Pentagon and promptly “disappeared.” Because that is the official story…

      So your science is not science. It is a religious belief in NASA.

      My mind is open on this issue. If we can get real proof that man walked on the moon I will accept it. However, I do not have faith in NASA and consider the probability of them to be not telling the truth in relation to the Apollo moon walks to be very high.

      As I have said before the purpose of this thread is to investigate the possibility that NASA faked the “Man on the Moon” story. There are other websites who are trying to establish it as a fact that the NASA story is true.

      We need to give the people a chance to discuss these ideas.

      There is no point if every time someone posts something on this thread you and STMan and Clauvis all jump on him and try to “defeat” him. It defeats the purpose of the discussion.

      You do not consider anything I write or anyone else writes with an open mind. You have already decided that the “Man on the Moon” story is true by accepting NASA as your authority and only source of information on the matter. I do not consider NASA a reliable source of information on the man walking on the moon story as they have a vested interest in convincing people that the story is true. Their story may well be an elaborate collection of lies.

      So I am not convinced, I do not accept NASA’s “evidence” and want to provide a forum to discuss these points.

      So please forgive me but I am not going to post all your comments. It is the same thing over and over again and everything you say is meaningless if NASA is not telling the truth. Everything you say assumes NASA is telling the truth. And I do not accept this assumption.

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

      • STMan says:

        I just want you to have a look at this site regarding the claim of an 8 foot hole in the pentagon.
        http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-hole.html

        There’s also many sites that show the debris from the plane near the crash site. Here’s one.

        http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon_20020316.html

        One other point is that the explostion seen by the security camera, is consistent with a fuel explosion, just like the videos showing the crashes at the world trade center.

        Many people saw the plane parts that day, and took photos. Just hope you will have a look.

        • Dear STMan,

          This is a very weak attempt. There is no proof whatsoever that an American Airlines 757 hit the Pentagon at all. There is also footage of men in suits scattering these very small plane pieces around the lawn after the plane hit which I am sure you are aware of. So of course many people saw plane parts. Many people also saw the men in suits scattering them around.

          With all due respect this shows you are not thinking. Even if we accept the hole is bigger than 8′ if the 757 went in the hole it should be inside? But it is not. There is nothing inside except some scattered junk, mostly coming from the building itself. What happened to the passengers bodies? What happened to their luggage, what happened to the plane?

          And even if the body of the plane went through the hole what about those huge engines that are supposedly still firing at full speed and which are providing all the forward thrust for the plane? And those engines are very strong and heavy. They are designed to withstand the heat of burning fuel in them for extended periods of time, like 24 hours or more. So even if the plane did disappear into the hole the wings would sheer off. Even if the wings themselves somehow “vaporized” and disappeared, there is no way in the world that two huge, heavy jet engines can vaporize. And the plane was supposed to be going like 600 miles per hour when it hit the building and the engines would have hit the building the hardest. But there is no mark on the building where the engines hit nor is there any wings or big engines or even pieces of anything that might resemble a 757 engine on the lawn.

          So this proves that you do not consider the obvious, which is there was no 757 there at the Pentagon. You are simply accepting the official story and trying to somehow think of outlandish explanations to “explain” the impossible “official story”. You can not believe that NASA would lie, nor can you believe that the US government would lie. Even though this is the most logical explanation of the evidence by far.

          The only picture on the website you refer us to that contains anything that resembles a part of a 757 is this:

          And you see it is a very small piece, look at the grass for the scale, it is not more than 18″ long! It is just a little crumpled, there is no indication of any heat damage at all. Where is the rest of the plane? You say the whole plane, passangers, wings, engine, luggage, etc, all vaporized but here we see a piece of the plane that has not got even the slightest hint of heat damage…. But the rest of the plane vaporized and simply disappeared????

          It seems there are people who will believe anything at all, no matter how impossible it is, if the authorities say so.

          At least in this case your “explanations” are nonsensical and your “photo evidence” is nonexistent, yet you are claiming you have proved a 757 hit the Pentagon.

          Your proof that man walked on the moon is just as weak. Every single thing you present as “evidence” is given to us by NASA. If NASA is lying they are quite capable of fabricating these photos, videos, and moon rocks and the Astronauts obviously can only say what they are permitted to say by NASA. That is their job.

          So I will assert quite strongly that there is no evidence at all for the moon walks if you discount the so-called “evidence” from NASA. It seems to me there is a very good chance that the whole “Man on the Moon” story is nothing more than a fairy tale.

          Until we get some proof, which means if we actually went in the 60′s we should be able to go now. And we can’t go now. So that in itself is proof that we did not go in the 60′s.

          And obviously others should go. China, Russia, India, Japan…

          For the time being it remains a Fairy Tale to a very large percentage of the population.

          Madhudvisa dasa

      • karl says:

        ||The points that you make have been made over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and again. I have heard them all before and remain unconvinced. Everything you say all rests on having faith in NASA, believing in NASA. You have that faith, I do not believe [in NASA].||

        You’ve heard them but remain unconvinced why? We’ve demonstrated several times above the answers to the claims you made don’t rely on NASA. The TV show Myth Busters answered several.

        ||I do not consider NASA a reliable source of information on the man walking on the moon story as they have a vested interest in convincing people that the story is true. Their story may well be an elaborate collection of lies.||

        Pilots have a vested interest in convincing you they know something about flying planes. Your car mechanic has a vested interest in convincing you he put your tires on correctly. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.

        I’ve asked a few times what has NASA done that leads you to believe you can’t trust the science coming out of NASA?

        ||However, astronauts walk around the moon and they make very clear footprints in the lunar surface. At least an inch or so deep. Maybe more. The lunar lander makes no impression whatsoever in the moon’s surface.||

        Again, this was answered in a link provided and I quickly summarized it. The lander’s engines produce less pressure in the final assent than a human step. The math is right there on the page. If the math is beyond you, I’d ask you to find someone within the Krishna fold to pick it apart. Merely hand waving it away is poor scholarship.

        You keep claiming we’re not open minded but I keep reading your claims, answering them, and then asking you to explain why the claim is poor. So I can understand why you think the claim is poor. But the moon hoax side never has an answer. People simply return and repeat the original claim (“why haven’t we been back!” etc.)

        Who is not being open minded, exactly?

        • Hello Karl

          I have made my points and you have made your points, or at least STMan has made them. There is nothing new to add. It is all there in the thread already and I have already said I am not going to post the same stuff over and over and over again.

          You don’t listen also. And you don’t see any discrepancies in NASA even though there are many.

          The Lunar lander is much heavier than a man, in fact it contains all the men and the equipment that were on the moon. We see the men walking around on the same moon dust that the lunar lander is standing on. They make footprints at least 1″ deep. The Luna Lander, however, makes no impression whatsoever. As I pointed out this is a mistake by NASA. The Luna lander must sink to at least the same amount as the men on the moon sink to produce their footprints.

          There are so many real inconsistencies in the NASA “evidence” but you are blind to them.

          Every piece of “evidence” we have comes from NASA or the employees of NASA. If they wanted to fake it they could have. That is my point. I am not saying absolutely that the did fake it. But from my analysis of the “evidence” and from the information I have from other sources I feel the most likely think is NASA faked it.

          The only real “evidence” that I have ever come across that can be independently tested is the Luna Lazer Ranging experiment. But after further investigation into it that is not very strong evidence. At least one of the reflectors was put on the moon by an unmanned probe. So even if the reflectors are there they could have been put there by unmanned probes. But the actual experiment is also quite far-feched and unlikely.

          On their figures the lazer is expanded to 2 miles wide when what is left of it gets to the moon. So you only have a 1 foot square reflector… 2 square miles is an area of 111,513,600 square feet. So of the tiny amount of light from the lazer that hits the moon after travelling 1/4 of a million miles only .0000000000089 percent of it will hit the reflector. Now that is not much light!

          And it will not all be reflected of course, the reflectors are probably quite dusty now even if they are there…

          The real killer, however is the return journey. Even on their figures they extimate that what is left of the reflection from that 1 foot square reflector will spread out to over 16 miles in diamater by the time it reaches the earth. And the main telescope they use for this experiment in Texas only has a 1.5′ diamater mirror. So even if we say the telescope can scrape up light from 3 square feet, the reflection of the lazer from the reflector on the moon is now 16 miles wide! That is roughly about 7 billion square feet! So what a tiny percentage of the tiny amount of light can possibly hit the 3 foot square telescope our of the reflection that spreads over 7 billion square feet! It is something like .000000000004 percent.

          So the bottom line, is this experiment is practically impossible. And if they are actually getting a reflection at all, which they may be, it is not coming from the 1 foot square reflector. It is coming from the moon itself! The moon itself will reflect the lazer, on the whole 112 million square feet. The tiny reflection from the mirror that is only 1 square foot in size is completely insignificiant in comparison to a reflection coming from the 112 million square feet of the Moon’s surface. The moon is a very good reflector. Just look at it on a full moon night. How bright and shiny it is…

          So the bottom line is that the only “proof” that can be tested outside NASA, the LLR expiriement, is so weak that it does not in any way prove that there are reflectors installed on the moon at all.

          There is no other proof at all except by accepting that everything NASA says is true. That is what you do. And your “proof” that man walked on the moon boils down to “NASA says they walked on the moon and the astranouts say they walked on the moon and I believe them!”

          That is not proof, that is FAITH.

          Madhudvisa dasa

          • gourasundar das says:

            Hare Krishna Madhudvisa:

            May the Lord Krishna grant you His blessings particularly due the tolerance whith these 2 guys who come to say: “We put the cards on the table and we say the rules of the game.” What Is this a dictatorship?

            We can spend the rest of our lives arguing about uncertain scientific questions and never reach a real conclusion.

            One of they said that he is not american and is he is not defending the government, but now when he is lost he dropped over the Pentagon. Where is human integrity?

            They were asking one evidence, and I gave them the strongest evidence that has been given based on the common sense of human rationality, but these guys ignore it and continue the question of science.

            What I would like to say to these guys if they are whithout job, the best work they can do is to read the books of Srila Prabhupada, chant the Maha Mantra Hare Krishna and stop eating meat because the meat covers the brain and the heart and becomes the people in two-legged animals, Dua Pada pasu.

            Srila Prabhupada Ki jay

          • Theteacher says:

            “The Lunar lander is much heavier than a man, in fact it contains all the men and the equipment that were on the moon. We see the men walking around on the same moon dust that the lunar lander is standing on. They make footprints at least 1″ deep. The Luna Lander, however, makes no impression whatsoever. As I pointed out this is a mistake by NASA. The Luna lander must sink to at least the same amount as the men on the moon sink to produce their footprints.”

            The LM was heavier than a man, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is the pressure pr. square inch. As the area of the pads is much larger than the area of a man’s footprint, the lander does not sink to the same amount as the astronauts. Furthermore was most of the dust blown away directly under the LM.

          • You say, “the lander does not sink to the same amount as the astronauts.” Maybe, maybe not. But it must sink. That is my point and on the NASA pictures it does not sink at all. It is simply sitting on the sand, it does not even sink a few millimeters…

            The lunar lander contains all the astronauts, all the equipment and the weight must be at least 10 times the weight of one man.

            It must sink into the lunar sand quite significantly…

            You say the sand was blown away by the jets but if that was the case there would be sand on the landing pads. There is not a single gran of sand on the landing pads. That is another problem. If there was dust blown away there would be a cloud of dust and that dust would have settled on the landing pads. But there is no dust…

            It is simply a mistake that NASA made on their “moon set” and you have people trying to explain it because they desperately want to believe the “Man on the Moon” story is true.

            This story is full of so many contradictions that at least, according to my considered opinion, there is almost no possibility that men walked on the moon during the NASA Apollo missions.

          • Theteacher says:

            I didn’t say, that the lander didn’t sink the same amount as the astronauts. You said that.

            What I did was to explain to you, why it didn’t. It’s simple mechanics. It’s a question of pressure pr. square inch. That’s why a needle will hurt you, but a thumb won’t – even when you press them against your skin with the same force. They simply don’t have the same area. The area of the pads where designed the way they were, because earlier experiences with the Surveyer probes had shown, what would be an apropriate design.

            Then you say: “…there would be sand on the landing pads. There is not a single gran of sand on the landing pads. That is another problem”.

            This is only a problem, if you expect to se “sand” on the landing pads. I don’t expect that, so to me it’s not a problem. If there had been sand on the landing pads, I would have wondered, how it got there, because in a vacuum it is impossible given the actual circumstances.

            Then you continue: “If there was dust blown away there would be a cloud of dust and that dust would have settled on the landing pads. But there is no dust.”

            But in a vacuum nothing gets blown away, and there are no clouds of dust – or clouds of anything else for that matter. In a vacuum all particles behave the same regardless of their size. That means, that dust particles fall to the ground at the same speed as stones and pebbles.

            The only dust, that is pushed away, is the dust hit directly by the exhaust, and when it moves freely, it follows a ballistic trajectory in axactly the same way as stones and pebbles would do. That is why there is no dust or “sand” on the pads, and it also explains, why there – despite the exhaust, which by the way was turned completely off 10 feet above the ground – still could be made footprints relatively close to the lander.

            Then you say: “This story is full of so many contradictions that at least, according to my considered opinion, there is almost no possibility that men walked on the moon during the NASA Apollo missions.”

            But 1: There are no contradictions to the educated scientist. There would have been contradictions, if photos and films showed up in the way, you seem to expect. Then there would be questions to ask. But as it is, no scientists see any contradictions, because the photos and films describe the events exactly in the way, the educated mind would expect.

            2: This matter is not a question of “opinion”, because this is not a debate based on a difference in values. It is a matter of scientific fact. You have put forward a large array of questions, and several persons have provided thorough answers. This whole line of suspicious questions is not in the slightest way an issue in the scientific community worldwide because – as mentioned earlier – to the educated scientific mind there are no contradictions whatsoever.

          • You say that “There are no contradictions to the educated scientist,” and that is very true. Because an “educated scientist” knows very well that virtually all scientific research is funded either by the government or by large commercial interests. So an “educated scientist” is very careful not to offend the hand that feeds him. An “educated scientist” must accept the “official line.” If he does not he will not get his papers published and he will be sacked from his position and will not longer be accepted as a respected scientist.

            In the case of the moon mission the “educated scientists” must accept as a fact that man walked on the moon. They are not permitted to question this. If they question such a thing they will be rejected by the scientific community. So the job of any “educated scientist” is to take all this contradictory and inconsistient photographic evidence from the moon mission and concoct some theories to “prove” that yes, this is what we would expect to see on the moon…

            An “educated scientist” does not have the option of even considering the posibility that NASA faked the man on the moon story. To even consider this would be against the “religion” of the scientists.

            You and your “educated scientist” friends speak so much nonsense and make so many contradictory statements and claim “I am a scientist, I know what is right, believe me…” But this argument is really very weak.

            At this point we have no actual proof that man walked on the moon and a whole lot of contradictions in the photo and video evidence. This is more-or-less proof that there is something very fishy with the “man on the moon” story.

            Madhudvisa dasa

  71. Premadas says:

    Last News : STman is going to launch a space vessel on the moon for checking the value of the square root of one. (=1 on earth and supposed to equal 0,33 on the moon – or in the moon ?

    • STMan says:

      Hey, everyone makes a mistake every now and then. I did realize my mistake, fairly quickly, but my correction didn’t make the post that day. If I make a mistake, I can admit it.

  72. Jonathan says:

    there are two ways to see things..
    doubts have been put in your head mostly for mediatic reasons (remember many people say the King was still alive) so no need to believe in these things… the other way is simply that man has never walked on the moon and specialists have evidence and may proove it to the world..

    On the other hand, NASA are not obliged to answer to these questions and I’m sure they will not argue with these people and they are right… otherwise this debate will never end and will put a huge doubt about the credibility of the USA.

    You know this year USA celebrate the 40 years man first walked on the moon so it was foreseen that these comments would come out now that the world is connected to internet.

    For my personal point of view, if man has really walked on the moon, they would have gone there again. And moreover the other big nations Russia, France, Uk, China, Japan have never projected to go on the moon despite there is nothing to do there.

    • Kyle says:

      One word: Gyroscopes. We’ve had autopilot machines since the 1930s. They don’t require powerful computers to operate or computers at all if you have a good pilot. Please educate yourself instead of taking an uneducated conspiracy theorists word for it.

      I know its likely too much to ask of you but think logically about this: It would’ve taken much more effort to create a hoax that tens of thousands of scientists from many nationalities conspired together on. Even the US’ enemy at the time, Soviet Russia acknowledged the achievement.

      I understand that someone with little to no scientific background might see landing on the moon as being impossible but it’s not. A simple 100 level college course in physics could elucidate you to this fact.

  73. bob says:

    Why did the flag move when the two men walked past. It was not moving until after the two men walked past. They did not bump it. How did this happen? I watched the video’s many times. I dont care if we went or not. I just want an answer.

    • karl says:

      ||Why did the flag move when the two men walked past. ||

      Because this scene never happened? Can you link to a video where you claim this happened?

      • gaurasundar das says:
        • Solo Lupus says:

          Ahh yes. Moonmovie.com

          Bart Sibrel’s extortionately priced, edited footage.

          Go look at the unedited copies on NASA’s site and compare what Sibrel did and claims to the real footage.

          Then decide whether your $45 was well spent.

      • kyle xy says:

        what are you expecting from the flag a status that doesn’t move every object that has a speed moves !

  74. ่just wondering says:

    Just being really curious, to those who claim that the moon landing was a hoax,

    I believe that you have a post concerning about a picture taken from outer space of a bridge linking Sri Lanka and India. You also say that it is proof that the story of Ramayana (Not sure if spelt correctly). So concluding you say that science that came from NASA(which you think lied about the landings) confirms Ramayana.

    How can it be that you are able to trust in the same source but still say it is lying?

    • We are not saying that satellites are false. How can anyone say this? We are using them every day for communications and GPS.

      There is no question at all if NASA can put up satellites in earth orbit and transmit and receive data from them. Anyone can prove this. Anyone who has satellite TV can prove this. He can point his satellite dish at the satellite and get the TV reception. It is proof.

      In so many ways there is independent proof of the existence and functioning of the satellites. And also so many countries have put satellites up and are using them. The satellite technology is in the public domain and any country can put up a satellite and use it.

      On the other hand we do not find any verifiable proof at all that man has walked on the moon apart from the pictures and moon rocks given to us by NASA. And when one does analyze the pictures and videos there are so many apparent contradictions and errors in them that any thoughtful person will naturally question if this is real or if this has been faked.

      So you cannot compare satellites and the moon walking. If we had as much evidence that man had walked on the moon as we have of the existence of satellite technology then no one at all would question the moon walks. But we have no evidence. That is the problem. And it has been over 40 years and no one has been back to the moon, although many countries have moon mission programs, no one has been able to go again…

      So there is good reason for suspicion here. The real proof of satelites is that any country can put them up and use them. The real proof that we can go to the moon will be that any country who is prepared to spend the money can go there and do something practical there. So far we do not have that proof…

      We are waiting for that. In the meantime a thoughtful person has to consider the possibility that the moon missions were faked by NASA for some political reasons.

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  75. Premadas says:

    Does everybody knows that there is also an Indian flag on the moon now (since a few years). Do the sceptical believe it ? the Indian are preparing to walk on the moon very soon. Is it the NASA that some do not trust, or is it the science, or is it the material world ? if everything is illusion, or maya, then all our beliefs, images, cults are illusion too.

  76. Cengiz says:

    With todays technology States can only send men to 20 miles away from the surface of the world. Who can believe that 50 years ago they can go to 220.000 miles away. (Oh and another 220.000 miles to return back).

    And there was no dealy accident in all of the 7 journeys???

    • Clavius says:

      The space shuttle and other manned spacecraft orbit much higher than 20 miles.

      If you examine the post-flight reports, you’ll find that there were significant mistakes, failures, and exceptions on all Apollo flights except for Apollo 17. In the case of Apollo 13 the astronauts were placed in extreme danger and the Moon landing had to be aborted.

      The most dangerous parts of any space flight are the launch and landing. Every space flight has one of those, no matter how far away you go. We don’t go to the Moon because there is no public mandate to do it. It has little to do with technology. We have not maintained the specialized equipment such a journey requires, so it will take some time to resurrect and extend it.

      • Space Station is about 220 miles above earth, space shuttle can orbit around 100 to 400 miles approx.

        Still 400 miles is nothing compared to the approx 250,000 miles to the moon.

        There is no question that in the Apollo missions the astronauts were put in the capsule and fired into the sky by the rocket. So they had to endure a take-off and a landing which as you say entail real danger, even if they did not actually go to the moon.

        The most likely scenario seems to be that they took off and orbited the earth for some time and then landed in the ocean at the appropriate time. So even putting up a manned mission to do this is quite dangerous and puts the astronauts in real danger.

        As far as going to the moon your President George Bush mandated it and was prepared to fund it but NASA replied, “We can’t do it now…”

        As I have said many times so far there is no proof, we are waiting for the proof…

        Madhudvisa dasa

        • Clavius says:

          An orbiting CSM/LM stack would be the third brightest object in the sky, aside from the Moon and Venus. It would appear to be moving very fast. Can you explain why there were no unexplained sightings of an orbiting spacecraft during the time in which you claim the CSM/LM were in low Earth orbit?

          Radio contact with the spacecraft was maintained by large radiotelescopes that cannot slew fast enough to track a LEO object. What were these telescopes locked into instead? How was line-of-sight radio contact maintained with a low orbiting spacecraft in 1969? Or were all the various radio operators in all those different countries part of the hoax?

          There is plenty of evidence that Apollo was real. It’s what you and others are scrambling to explain away.

          As for why we cannot immediately return to the Moon, you deleted my post which explained this. Please restore it or stop raising the point in your own posts.

          • My point is that these NASA people had unlimited money and if they wanted to fake it they could have. That is all. Exactly how they would go about doing it you would know that much better than me. Exactly how they did it I do not know. But they may have faked it. That is a possibility.

            I am waiting for some independent confirmation of this, that is all… Some actual proof.

            Radio signals are not very good proof. As long as there is a signal coming from the right direction the radio telescopes can not tell how far away it is. It could be coming from anything in the line of sight to where the space craft is supposed to be. Even an airplane could transmit this signal and the radio telescope operator would be none the wiser. Also you can bounce radio signals off the moon and the radio telescope can not tell if it is a bounced signal or if it is coming from the moon. So as a scientific man I am sure you can work out a very simple way to fake this if you wanted to.

            If they wanted to fake it for some political reasons the could have. It is not a very difficult thing to do. And there is no way for you or me to tell if it is faked or genuine. To confirm it we need to see others going and doing practical things on the moon…

            You have faith in NASA, you believe what they say to be true, and that is your only “proof” that we went to the moon. I do not have this faith and require some independently verifiable proof of the type which is available for practically any other scientific achievement we have ever made. But there is no independent proof of men walking on the moon, that is my point…

          • Clavius says:

            Why, with “unlimited funds,” could not NASA have succeeded in its stated mission to land on the Moon? You ascribe to NASA near omnipotence in faking the Moon landings, but you will not allow them that power when considering the proposition that they succeeded. NASA is clever and capable, in your mind, only when playing out YOUR scenario. You’ve simply decided that NASA faked it, and you’re trying to backfill an argument toward that conclusion.

            Saying these radio signals can be faked with aircraft or by bouncing them off the Moon itself is highly naive. Have you asked any actual radiotelescope operators whether that claim is credible? Have you ever operated a radiotelescope? As a scientific man I CANNOT figure out a way to fake the radio signals convincingly, and neither can Mike Dinn of Australia, who has been a radiotelescope operator for many decades. I don’t have the responsibility to work out exactly how it was done; you’re the one claiming it’s easy so you please tell us, and please get verification from actual practitioners regarding whether your scheme would work. Don’t just guess that it would.

            You keep saying I and others “have faith” in NASA. In fact you put your faith in known charlatans such as David Percy and Ralph Rene to spoon-feed you unscientific arguments, and in your unfounded layman’s supposition that the details of faking the Moon landings are “not a very difficult thing to do.” My faith resides in my 25 years’ experience engineering machinery for space. I don’t rely on the principles of space travel simply because NASA says so. I rely on them because they’re proven to work.

            I challenged you in another post that you deleted to provide the names of qualified practitioners in the relevant sciences that agree with you. Can you do this? Or is it in fact the case that the world’s scientific and engineering communities universally accept that Apollo was authentic?

          • I do not want to get into an argument with this. I have stated it clearly that I am waiting for some independent verification that we had men walking on the moon. I accept the possibility that we may have had me walking on the moon. But I also consider the possibility that the moon missions may have been faked for some political reason. Both things are possible as far as I can see and we started this thread to discuss the possibility that the moon missions may have been faked. There are many websites like your own where all the information can be found that supports the validity of the moon landings. And there are many other websites that point out apparent discrepancies in the photo and video evidence. I have considered the explanations for these discrepancies and I am still not personally convinced.

            I think you know that in most cases scientists have to support the generally accepted belief and if they do not they will be rejected from the scientific community. So on most points you will find a great deal of cohesion among the opinions of scientists. They must “follow the party line.” Otherwise they will not get their papers published or get funding for their research.

            So I respect you intelligence and determination in presenting these points but as I have many times said we are waiting for more evidence before a final decision can be made on this matter.

            I don’t know why you can not figure out how to fake radio telescope signals? You know where the radiotelescope is and you know where the object the radiotelescope is pointing at is. All you have to do to fake the signal is to broadcast it from somewhere in the line between the radiotelescope and the object the radiotelescope is pointing at. That can be very easily done as I said from a plane or some other object in the sky.

            The point I am making is if NASA wanted to fake it they could have and they would have done a very convincing job and would have obviously found ways to convincingly fake the radio signals. You may not understand how they did it as you do not know how a magician makes doves or rabbits come out of his hat, but still you know there is some trick. So because you do not understand how NASA faked it does not mean that they did not fake it.

            So I think you would have to accept that if NASA wanted to fake the moon landings they could have done it. And we would never know because all the information on this comes through NASA. There is no way of testing it independently. That is really the only point I am making. We are waiting for independent evidence on this to verify it…

            Madhudvisa dasa

            Madhudvisa dasa

          • T. Thatcher says:

            Did I get this right. One of the problems that make new moon missions so difficult is that we have abandoned Saturn V rockets?
            So?
            Have we lost the plans for how to build them?
            We must invest billions more to figure out how we did this decades ago?
            Why are we suddenly unable to build more Saturn V rockets?

  77. Premadas says:

    I might insist, but I’d really like to know whether the sceptical followers of the path of Sanatana Dharma believe that or not :

    “Indian Flag Placed on the Moon
    Monday November 17, 2008
    The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) are justifiably proud of their latest achievement. In an historic event, the Indian space program managed to place the Indian tricolour on the Moon’s surface on November 14, 2008, anniversary of the birth of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, India’sfirst Prime Minister. The Indian flag was painted on the sides of the Moon Impact Probe (MIP), one of the 11 payloads of Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft, that successfully hit the lunar surface 8:31 pm IST. This is the first Indian built object to reach the surface of the moon. The point of MIP’s impact was near the Moon’s South Polar Region.
    It is a fitting tribute to Nehru since the modern Indian space program was initiated in 1962 when Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was the Prime Minister of India.

    Weighing 34 kg at the time of its launch onboard Chandrayaan-1, the box shaped MIP carried three instruments:

    Video Imaging System
    Radar Altimeter
    Mass Spectrometer
    The video imaging system was intended to take the pictures of the moon’s surface as MIP approached it. The radar altimeter was included to measure the rate of descent of the probe to the lunar surface. Such instruments are necessary for future lunar soft landing missions. And, the mass spectrometer was for studying the extremely thin lunar atmosphere.
    MIP’s 25 minute journey to the lunar surface began with its separation from Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft at 8:06 pm IST. This was followed by a series of automatic operations that began with the firing of its spin up rockets after achieving a safe distance of separation from Chandrayaan-1. Later, the probe slowed down with the firing of its retro rocket and started its rapid descent towards the moon’s surface. Information from the its instruments was radioed to Chandrayaan-1 by MIP. The spacecraft recorded this in its onboard memory for later readout. Finally, the probe had a hard landing on the lunar surface that terminated its functioning.

    Thus, India’s very first attempt to send a probe to the moon’s surface from its spacecraft orbiting the moon has been successfully concluded.

    With the switching ON of two of Chandrayaan-1’s payloads – Terrain Mapping Camera (TMC) and Radiation Dose Monitor (RADOM) – on its journey to moon and with MIP’s successful impact on the lunar surface today, it is planned to switch on and test the remaining eight payloads of the spacecraft in the coming few days.

    The Chandrayaan-1 craft was successfully launched on October 22, 2008 from India’s spaceport at Satish Dhawan Space Centre SHAR, Sriharikota into its intended initial elliptical orbit around the Earth. Following this, the spacecraft’s orbit was raised in steps and it was made to pass near the moon by repeatedly firing its 440 Newton liquid engine. After Chandrayaan-1’s entry into its planned lunar orbit on November 8, 2008, the orbital height was reduced in steps to its intended operational altitude of 100 km from the lunar surface.

    Since its launch, the health and orbit of Chandrayaan-1 is being continuously monitored from the Spacecraft Control Centre of ISRO’s Telemetry, Tracking and Command Network (ISTRAC) at Bangalore with critical support from antennas of Indian Deep Space Network (IDSN) at Byalalu. IDSN antennas have also received the images and scientific information gathered by TMC, RADOM, and more recently, by MIP.”

  78. Premadas says:

    Namaste,
    Seems that nobody wants to comment the ISRO statement. Does it mean that the sceptical put more faith in ISRO than in NASA ??
    All that is neither scientific, nor spiritual. It might be time to remind that the starting point of all that was a statement by Srila Prabhupada that there are living entities living on the moon, and they would never let any human being land on their territory.
    The point is particularly relevant for the devotees who could not bear seing any failure in their guru’s teachings. They should, and they can overtake this mental position simply by disconnecting simultaneously from both issues :
    (1)American landing on the moon,
    (2)Perfection of any human being -be it a guru-
    But it might be a great temptation to take an easiest way for whoever launched this forum : simply delete this post, avoid to confront one’s inner truth, and go on arguing in the lowest material world : the one of mundane controversy !!
    The American have been to the moon, the Indian will go and some day someone will chant : “Hare Krishna” up there, and Prabhupada will laugh joyfully.
    Love, devotion and … surrender !
    Prema Dasa

    • Hare Krishna Prema Dasa

      Prabhupada made many statements about the moon and these statements are coming from the Srimad Bhagavatam. If they went to the moon or not is not so important, we think it is very unlikely and as I have written many times we are waiting for some practical verifiable proof. And if the Indians can go to the Moon and chant Hare Krishna there I am sure you are correct, Srila Prabhuapda will be very happy!

      Surely this mystery will be resolved in time.

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

      • Clavius says:

        No, you’re grasping at straws to reject the evidence that’s been presented. There is no mystery, at least among the people who understand these sciences. You put your faith in conspiracy theorists because they put a pseudo-intellectual veneer over your desired belief. If you want to believe, upon a religious basis, that the Moon landings were fake, then express that faith. But don’t try to make it sound like a scientific argument if the science doesn’t take you there.

        You try to portray science as some sort of “religion” where the practitioners are cowed into silence. This is not at all how science proceeds. The fundamental tenet of science is that even the most apparently solid fact is merely a “theory” and can be upset at any time if the proper evidence comes along. Scientists who challenge the status quo and present the proper evidence to support it are hailed as heroes, not dismissed as mavericks. Scientists routinely review each other’s work dispassionately. But instead you have to present that caricature of science in order to find some way to sidestep the glaring fact that no one who has been properly trained in the relevant sciences agrees with you.

        You’re not a scientist and you’re not an engineer. If it really isn’t important to you whether people landed on the Moon or not, then kindly let us do our jobs without being maliciously attacked.

        • Science is some sort of religion that filters knowledge according to what is currently accepted as “fact” within science.

          This is simply the history. You can study the history and find out. Any great scientist in the past who has presented something that seriously challenges the current scientific view is attacked and ridiculed and that continues to the present day.

          And in this debate you are using so-called “science” to “prove” that questioning the truth of NASA’s man walking on the moon story is not scientific.

          The hypothesis that NASA faked the moon walks is just as valid as the hypothesis that NASA did not fake the moon walks. From the evidence we have either is possible. Personally I think it is more likely that NASA faked the moon walks, you think it is more likely that the moon walks were for real. But neither of us really knows one way or the other.

          For that we require further evidence and as I have many times said the proof that we have been to the moon is that we can go to the moon now. That is the proof we need. No scientific experiment will ever be taken seriously if it can only be performed by some organization a few times and then they can not do it any more and no other person or organization or country can repeat it…

          This is the proof and validation of any scientific experiment. It has to be repeatable…

          Anyhow science is a religion. You have your doctrine, your high priests and anyone who does not follow the doctrine will be shunned by science. And this has happened to so many great scientists in the past who have presented ideas that are before their time. Even those who presented the idea that the earth was a sphere were faced with a lot of opposition for the scientific circles of their time. And the same religious sentiment of sticking to the accepted beliefs persists in science.

          You can not deny this. It is simply history. If you look into the “science” of evolution you will simply a group of men calling themselves scientists who are simply believers in the religion of evolution. And they will do anything to try and prove that evolution is true.

          You are like an evolutionist. But instead of evolution, you believe in NASA. NASA is your religion. You believe them, you accept what they say as true and you will do anything and everything to try to explain all discrepancies in what they present as being what intelligent scientists would expect to see… But you will never consider that NASA may have faked the moon walks. That is against your religion…

          Madhudvisa dasa

  79. Roberd says:

    The behavior of the two astronauts, one closing himself to the world the other going alcoholic… no one of them saying things about the landing that make sense, no emotions, nothing… they act as being in constant fear of saying something about it. That´s weird enough to rise suspicions, not to mention the pictures and so on. I really imagine those two guys have confronted their minds since 1969 with a “magnificent desolation”, by Aldrin.

  80. Gourasundar Das says:

    Hare Krishna to all.

    If we ask to the people who reach the peak of Everest which the benefit for mankind is that you put a flag on the crest of Everest? Possibly they feel humiliated and maybe could cry.

    But every year the world’s richest people still is risking their life, their most valuable wealth, by placing a flag on Everest. And there are many who die in the attempt.

    The sentence of Neil Armstrong was filled with a strong political charge, not a sentence out of a natural excitement of the moment. Rather as if to travel to other planets for him were some thing of everyday. And people are saying: “But I do not see any benefit to me or my family.” Maybe Armstrong did not know what the purpose of placing a flag on the moon was.

    To this date, there should be a lunar base and the lunar travel should be a tourist thing.

    There is no any theory of moon hoax, that’s another manipulation. In reality this is not a theory but the whole world on 20/07/69 realized lunar fraud at the poor show of Neil Armstrong. Immediately people began to question what they saw and draw conclusions was something massive and not theory of a few envious or something new.

    We live in an age of the hoax Kali Yuga; Srila Prabhupada said that in Kali Yuga everything is contaminated. The mass media has the ethics of exalt the worldly and minimize the divine. All movies, advertisements and so on news are handled. And all the food products are contaminated. So it is not surprising that trip to the moon be another hoax more. All religions are hoax except the chanting of the holly names and the religion that contains the biggest amount of these chanting is the best. (Bhaktivinod)

    Governments have given to the scientists of the world large sums of money to discover the missing link, and the Neanderthal man and all that were found to be hoax.

    I have heard that the Vedas say that the moon emerged from the ocean; it is assumed that the white color of the moon is due to be made of coral or limestone powder. But the rock that supposedly brought the astronauts was not white at all.

    NASA proved to be winner of the space race but very bad to make movies.

    The worst of this matter is that President Kennedy could not see his dream come true.

    Defeated yes; surrendered never.

  81. Premadas says:

    Madhudvisa dasa,
    In your reply to Clavius, you mention that “For that we require further evidence and as I have many times said the proof that we have been to the moon is that we can go to the moon now”.
    That is the reason why I mentioned earlier that ISRO (the Indian NASA) declared itself ready for sending men on the moon, after placing the Indian flag on the surface of the moon.
    That’s the reason why I also previously stated that : “It seems that nobody wants to comment the ISRO statement. Does it mean that the sceptical put more faith in ISRO than in NASA ?? ”
    May I point out that you did not reply ? Are you going to reply now ?
    It is not written anywhere in the Srimad Bhagavatam that human beings cannot visit the moon. And if it were the case, Srila Vyasadeva would have to write a new sloka.
    I would also suggest that you ask your guru to change your name for चन्द्रकान्त , “beloved by the moon”.
    Hari Bol,
    Premadas

    • Hare Krishna Premadas

      I am interested in the ISRO project but so far have not been able to get much information about it. I am in India now and will try and do some research on this and report back.

      We are put in a certain environment because of our karma and we are given a particular body to suit that environment. Of course human beings can travel to the moon but the standard way of doing this is to worship the presiding demigod of the moon and think of the moon at the time of death and then one can very easily travel to the moon and also receive a material body that is perfectly designed for living in the atmosphere of the moon. This system of traveling to other planets is very nicely described by Srila Prabhupada in his book: “Easy Journey to Other Planets.” You can read this book online at:

      http://prabhupadabooks.com/?g=156035

      The moon is actually a heavenly planet. The living conditions on the moon are far, far superior to the living conditions on the earth. To enter the heavenly planets one needs to have the qualifications to enter. You can not enter a heavenly planet by force. Srila Prabhupada gives the example that even on this planet one can not travel from India to the United States without the required visa and passport. So similarly entry into the moon planet is not possible without the required qualifications.

      From my extensive analysis of the information available from NASA on the moon mission it appears to me to be a complete hoax. I have not seen any information at all on the ISRO missions so I can not comment, but on your suggestion I will try to undertake some serious research on the ISRO project.

      Madhudvisa dasa

    • RE: THE INDIAN MOON MISSION

      I have done a little research on the ISRO Moon Mission.

      The total cost of the Indian moon mission is less than 80 million dollars!

      So if it is true that means getting the moon is a very simple and very inexpensive thing to do.

      India has only ever built and launched one mission to the moon. And it is basically a satellite. They put it in earth orbit like any ordinary satellite and over a number of rotations around the earth bumped it up higher and higher till it was up there near the moon and then fired some retro rockets to switch it from orbiting the earth to orbiting the moon.

      They shot one probe at the moon that had an Indian flag painted on it and took the usual moon pictures.

      If it is actually so easy and cheap for India to go to the Moon [less than 80 million dollars!] then this makes all the comments on this forum about the difficulty and expense of going to the moon seem rather ridiculous.

      Of course anyone who has spent time in India will know that it is not wise to take things at face value here. Cheating and corruption is so rampant in India that really you can not just believe what the Indians say. Again there needs to be some independent validation of this. And there is none.

      It is easy to make a computer simulation of the Indian Moon satellite and feed that into the “mission control center” and no one would know if the data feed is coming from the satellite or from the simulation.

      There is a lot of disinformation about this. India has only ever put up one moon mission and it is a satellite bumped up into the moon’s orbit, if that is possible… They have spent less than 80 million dollars on their moon mission… Maybe they can put some men on the moon for another 80 million dollars? In India computer animation is cheap…

      At this point I can not take the Indian moon mission very seriously…

      They have given us the ordinary moon pictures that we already have and nothing new really…

      It seems quite an ingenious idea. If you can really go to the moon so easily and cheaply why NASA spent so much money on it…

      Madhudvisa dasa

      • STMan says:

        I hadn’t heard about that either, but it does seem possible.

        NASA’s most recent lunar probe cost about 700 million. It is projected to impact the lunar south pole on October 9th, in order to test if there is water there.

        Here’s a quote from their site: The debris plumes are expected to be visible from Earth- and space-based telescopes 10-to-12 inches and larger.

        http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/overview/index.html

        So you may be able to verify this unmanned mission if you have a 10inch or larger telescope.

        One other comment is that a manned mission always costs a lot more since you need a larger rocket to lift the extra payload, and you need a return vehicle, along with consumables such as fuel, food, water and oxygen.

        • STMan says:

          Correction: Cost is about 79 million not 700. So it is about the same as the Indian moon mission.

        • Clavius says:

          There are both qualitative and quantitative differences between manned and unmanned space flight.

          STMan has discussed some of the quantitative difference: chiefly the masses of the spacecraft. LRO and LCROSS are somewhat anomalous for unmanned spacecraft in that two separate missions shared a launch vehicle, and the LCROSS impactor is designed to have a certain specific parasitical mass.

          The Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft had a takeoff mass of just under 1400 kg. That’s expected for that type of mission.

          The Apollo CSM mass was over 30,000 kg and the LM just under 15,000. Why so much? Because the Apollo missions were intended to do so much more than an unmanned flight, such as keep three men alive for two weeks, perform a soft landing on the lunar surface and return, and to land the crew safely on Earth. All those tasks require machinery and supplies that have mass.

          In other words, the typical Apollo mission payload was more than 30 times the mass of a typical unmanned spacecraft. The Saturn V was the only American rocket built that could deliver that much payload to the Moon. Roughly for each kilogram of payload, some 20 kg of fuel is required in the Earth launch vehicle. After the Saturn V was discontinued, there was no rocket powerful enough to deliver a manned spacecraft to the Moon. However there are plenty of medium-lift boosters in the world’s space fleets to deliver 1,000 kg or so to the Moon.

          The qualitative difference is in the expected reliability of manned versus unmanned rockets. Morally we require manned vehicles to operate more reliably than unmanned vehicles. We reduce the reliability of unmanned launch vehicles in order to put them within the reach of most customers. Typically a 1 in 20 failure rate is tolerable for an unmanned launch vehicle.

          For a manned launch vehicle we aim for something along the lines of 1 in 300 or better. Reliability costs money, and high reliability costs a whole lot of money. If you can build a 99-percent reliable launch vehicle for $10 million, one that’s 99.5-percent reliable may cost $100 million or more. Each small increment of expected reliability turns out to be a large multiple on the development and operating cost. Hence we don’t develop human-rated space flight technology until there’s a clear need to use it.

          So just because we can send a small expendable robot to the Moon on an existing workaday booster doesn’t mean we can resume manned flights with no additional effort. To try to compare Chandrayaan-1 and Apollo as if they were equivalent missions is misguided.

  82. HANS says:

    now they investigated the moonrock that was given from the american ambassador to the minister of the Netherlands late 60 s . They insured the rock for severel years which was kept in a museum in Amsterdam for more than 100 thousand euros. Now they found out that is is not a moonrock, but a normal stone. With no value at all.

    • Clavius says:

      To be more specific, the Amsterdam museum assumed for years that they had a genuine Moon rock. However visitors noticed that it did not resemble any of the Apollo samples. With suspicion thus aroused, scientists were able to very quickly and conclusively determine that the stone in the museum was not a Moon rock. Until then, no such study had been done.

      Real Apollo samples all have identification numbers that allow them to be curated by NASA, even though they may reside in other parts of the world. There is an Apollo sample in my city, with the ID number clearly present on its permanent encapsulation. This can be traced back through NASA records to determine exactly what mission collected it and where.

      The Amsterdam specimen had no such provenance. That is, curators could not produce any NASA documentation relating it to the Apollo sample catalogue. When the story of its delivery to the Netherlands was recounted, it was discovered that the gift occurred very shortly after the Apollo 11 mission, long prior to the time that any samples were released from NASA custody.

      In short, there was absolutely no valid reason for the Amsterdam museum to believe they possessed an actual Apollo Moon rock. Their gullibility is the issue here, not any allegation of wrongdoing by NASA. I can pick up any rock in my backyard and try to sell it as a Moon rock. Caveat emptor.

  83. kyle xy says:

    And where is the problem if NASA succeed ? is it wrong ? no one can determine space conditions because we have never been there right ? we can’t tell that they are lying and we can’t be sure that its 100% true right ? if it was a lie and if it was simple to made up a story of a step to mankind why other contries didn’t think about it and compete between each other with more videos and stories corrected by nasa’s faults that you bieleve its true. why only NASA made this step ? i think NASA has 75 % right and the rest may have around 25% correct or wrong ! this is my honest opinion !

    • T. Thatcher says:

      I’m terribly sorry but I can not understand what you are attempting to say

  84. Roland says:

    I’m also quite convinced that the moon landings have been faked…and that it’s absolutely impossible to pursue a successful moon mission (let alone several ones) with those toys never even been successfully tested. Anyone doing real world engineering will instantly notice that. You have to test, over and over again. Nothing works as designed from scratch. I’m also quite sure the unmanned Russian moon landing missions were fakes, too (which could explain why Russia remained silent about the American fakes).

    However, I’ve been wondering about the topic of the laser reflectors lately, because there were claims that the places where those reflectors are supposed to be located are significantly more reflective than the rest of the moon surface. Yes, the moon surface is reflective, and laser measurements have been done as early as 1962, but allegedly the reflectors made everything much better (albeit this could only be corrobated in recent years, supposedly).

    I found the wikipedia article with the added comment:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LunarPhotons.png

    “The cluster of photons in your picture shows very clearly that there is something on the lunar surface, of very small size, reflecting a lot more photons than all the rest of the surface.”

    This looked quite convincing at a first glance…though I did not fully understand the graph at first. Looking at it and thinking about it I found this comment to be outright stupid.

    To explain it: The y-axis displays the time gate for each individual laser pulse in nanoseconds. This means: When you send out a pulse you expect the reflections to return at a narrow time gate. The displayed range is about 100ns wide, which is equivalent to about + or -15m runtime (length) difference of light photons. Most of the photons have returned at a narrow band of about 2ns, which indicates that their runtime was about the same (less than 1m length difference).

    However, anyone able to do the basic math will know that projecting a beam (cone) to the moon ball (~300000km away, radius ~1700km), where it spreads out to about 2km in diameter and then back to the source on earth this will yield no measurable runtime difference (< 1 ns) in individual photons, no matter which point inside of this target area was hit – given that the surface is perfectly flat. So all you have to do is actually find a rather flat area on the moon with no notable craters, hills, rocks and mountains and you should quite precisely get the response shown in the graph.

    So, far from being proof for the presence of a laser reflector, this graph is only proof that the surface is reflective and the targeted area is flat. On the contrary, if all those photons would have been reflected by the tiny reflector, the band should be a really FINE LINE and not a band, as shown. So this graph can be considered as PROOF that NO REFLECTOR is present (or at least it has no impact).

    To prove that the reflectors actually are present you would need to compare the alleged landing sites with a large sample of other areas on the moon (especially flat ones) and conclusively show that the increased reflectivity at the “landing sites” is highly unusual. I’m not aware anyone has made such a comparison. Go figure.

    The funny thing is: NASA claims they precisely located the landing sites by using the reflectors (as in: finding the reflector sites). They did not constrict that statement to Apollo 11, 14 and 15, by the way. Go figure.

  85. chezwick marywether says:

    the mere fact that there is controversy and debates made over this subject tells me that something isn’t right.if the U.S.A. really did land on our moon then there actions most likely wouldn’t be so suspicious. if they had righteous and truthful answers to give us, we would already have them and the government would be overjoyed to give them to us. the problem is that they don’t have the wonderful answer that we are all looking for. which obviously is why they choose to keep us in the dark. for those who rally on the governments side i give you this statement. for all the pieces of the puzzle that are there, there are just as many that are missing, which leaves the puzzle unfinished. i don’t know about you, but i have never looked at an incomplete puzzle and felt proud of it. an incomplete puzzle doesn’t paint a picture. in this case i need a really convincing picture to be painted for me to believe that we have stepped FOOT on the moon.

  86. NorthStarGal52 says:

    There is just noway I belive it, I didnt believe it back then when I wasz 17 and now you have to be a total nut to belive this ever happened. Let’s get real theres just tooooooooooo much evidence to prove they never made it to the moon and never walked on the surface of the moon. I want to knnow where is the capsule lander and why we can take all sorts of shots of the area where we landed and put those up but yet we cant see the lander and the epression in the moon it would of made on take off. there was no indication of any dust particles or what ever showing the impression of a landing yet they show a boot imprint, come on people tell me how a nylon flag withstood the high temperatures it was a nylon flag baught from Sears. By the way that is what NASA is claimed to have said. It’s as phoney as bologna.

    • Dude says:

      Watch the myth busters episode debunking the conspiracy and you will have your answer, except you will not believe it anyway since you would rather not. There is no telescope designed to see that much detail that closely so that answers that. The flag was not bought at sears, but nylon can withstand cold. The video clearly shows dust blowing from the lander. In a vacuum the dust acts differently.

  87. Micheal says:

    I think that picture is soooooo cool

  88. Rita says:

    One can definitely see Stanley Kubrick’s fingerprints throughout the Apollo photographs and video materials. Jay Weidner demonstrates Stanley’s cinematic technique here:

    How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings:
    http://www.jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.html

  89. The moon landing was real. There is a ton of ways to ptove.It was not fake like people think it is!

  90. lucy says:

    i dont think man landed on the moon i think it was just for publicity

  91. Amber Marinello says:

    I don’t understand how people donot believe we landed on the moon. There is logical proof that we did. It is not a conspiracy, if it was it would have been discovered by now. Why would Nasa put billions of dollars into something and just tell a lie about it? I mean seriously. That’s stupid. Like the 9/11 thing it HAPPENED wheater you believe it or not; there is proof! So people need to stop saying things are fake when things are real because it stupid and such a waste of time.

  92. Sam says:

    Really are some people stupid enough to believe this piece of junk landed on the Moon, then took off again?
    http://apolloreality2.bravehost.com/index_files/0b1ac890.jpg

  93. frankbeing says:

    We know of an ancient radiation
    That haunts this dismembered
    constellation…

  94. Craig says:

    There were nine Apollo missions that went to the moon.

  95. animalfarm_sg says:

    Hare Krishna

    Consider the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
    Observation of both sides are equally correct, both have parts of the truth.
    Trouble arises when mistakenly believe each part as the whole truth.

    To know this elephant better, consider this possibility:
    a) Men have indeed went to the moon (with help from special friends)
    b) They discovered things which the authority does not wish the rest of the world to know.
    c) The photographs were hence indeed faked to cover up something larger.

    This is only the tip of the iceberg :)

  96. mike says:

    Do you people ever leave the house or do you live in your mother’s basement? HAHAH this discussion is a big joke…. Lets change the topic….

    I think that your belief system is a big hoax. There is no god or energy in our bodies, I’m not even sure Asia exists. I’ve never been there and all i have seen are pictures that are all hoaxed. There is no Asia so there must be no “Maha Mantra”. This is a hoax too since no one could have wrote it. Why don’t you wake up and stop letting the government trick you into thinking that Asia really exists.

  97. Chris says:

    You can’t be serious. You mean to tell me that people actually believe man has gone to the moon with inferior technology of the 60′s and; we can’t go 1 mile beneath the surface of the ocean to stop this oil crisis in the year 2010. Now, if I’m not mistaken, isn’t the moon closer than one mile away. If so/if not, we need to revisit the technology of the 60′s that ( SO-CALLED ) sent man to the moon.

    Somebody is playing games somewhere.

    • Kyle says:

      Chris,

      It is much easier to maintain normal air pressure in a capsule in space than it is to deal with the intense pressure of the deep sea. Think of a simple scientific experiment to prove this:

      Put a can of soda (the capsule) in a vacuum chamber… Does anything happen? No of course not. The can maintains it’s structural integrity because all opposing forces exist within the can and the vacuum is a… well vacuum. It has no force on the pressurized capsule. Open the can and it will explode obviously as the gasses contained within rush to meet equilibrium.

      Now put the same can in a pressure chamber and crank that baby up to equivalent pressures 1km under the ocean. That same can will slowly begin to be crushed. This is because the outside pressures are acting upon the structure of the can.

      This is why it is easier to go to the Moon than it is to go to the bottom of the Ocean.

      Next time, think like a scientist instead of a conspiracy theorist. The truth is much more interesting than some idiotic crackpot claims that a three year old could debunk.

  98. Kyle says:

    Alright you hippies. Put down your bongs and read this: http://www.space.com/news/090717-lro-apollo11-images.html

    So now that we have actual pictures from a JAXA (Japanese) Lunar Orbiter what is your excuse now? America is the devil and they want you to believe they went to the moon so you will eat more of their delicious cheeseburgers? You conspiracy theorists show your scientific ignorance when you make up these ridiculous claims. My favorite was “Why don’t they just use the Hubble to take pictures of the lander?”

  99. I seriously doubt that anyone has been to the moon.I think it was all staged.We will probably never really know for sure, but i think it was a hoax.Too many inconsistencies.The government isn`t going to tell us the truth.

  100. Ram Roy says:

    The real relavant facts are this:

    1. It was much cheaper to fake moon landings then go there

    2. The so-called ‘moon’ some craft went to is not in fact the moon you see in the sky – that moon is unapproachable by any materialistic machine, and far too far away to be reached and return due to the difference in time.
    This is actualy evidenced by Vedic fact, by KRSNA and by beings that can travel freely anywhere, even beyond the universe!
    The place went to and responsible for eclipse etc. is Rahu – the Ghostlike planet, the head of the demon far more capable and inteeligent than any material scientists / NASA exploiters, who got his head cut off for interfering in the unshakable universal order!

    3. None of the current minds that would collaborate on such space flights are capable to understand how to do so – I for instance know certainly that according to the theories of Einstein that is hardly possible – you would have to understand the simple fact that both space and time are hopeless curved,warped, even folded making the mundane ‘model’ of the current solar system ridiculous.
    The fact is I know how poorly intelligent almost all on Earth are, I look at the information presented by Einstein and can easily see it is millions of times more complex than any model published – and yet almost all so-called geniuses are confused – like little children – This idea of understanding the complex machinery of space and time by unqualified minds is like a child’s wanting to – it is completely beyond their capability, even if they had the machines of the demons of the lower systems which actually can navigate some space although extremely limited. It will take your scientists probaly half this age of kali to do so, (but you will never reach the moon – lol a heaven far,far,far,above this world) or about 200,000 years, and then only will you get to Rahu anyway.. lol!
    The secrets of the complex models no mundane man will even even see, they are not even much revealed in the Vedas presented on Earth (i.e 5th Canto SB, etc.)simply because the so-called ‘brilliant’ scientists / warmonger ‘civilized’ men would simply make a mess of the Earth and skies even more!
    The fact is material scientists so proud are complete fools, and the heros Aldrin, etc. of mudane fools all bound for the dark regions of this universe, sadly.

    4. Einstein and so many real geniuses never reveal what they found to the crude warmongers of this world. After Einstein died they cross sectioned his brain matter (sorry for the unpleasant description) and it was proven his capacity for functions of transmission of thought was much greater than most everyone’s. People of lessor brain matter can never hope to understand what so clearly even what he did reveal clearly indicates.

  101. Ram Roy says:

    And You might note that Einstein Read Bhagavad-Gita and belived in God.

    And if you have some intellect you look google stanford.edu einstein – you find not only the theory but the philosphy not just theory he contributed – http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/
    you run into a word called ontology
    it is word used generally by philosophy or metaphysic students but of necessity it is used also by the highest theorists, because it all about estimating what is real or not, and the relavences.
    You see not only in physics the particles are theoretical, but even the particale matter, sometimes it exists or not, depending or what you compare it to. For ‘field’s aren’t even matter, so to speak.
    Anyway you find that to even approach higher physics science you actually have to be a philoshper first, and question, being or not being, of anything you can find here in this unvierse…
    A strange irony isn’t it.. those mundane mighty heros your culture conjured up the ‘scientists’ that ‘know everything’ they are fools.. only the wisest ones know that they do not know, they could not know everything, for as one’s knowledge increase so does the questions and the unknown!

  102. madhu says:

    If we went to the moon or not, the point is what has it achieved, and could money better be used here.

  103. Paolo M. says:

    Fact: Butter is the true food of the gods. That’s why it makes anything and everything taste better. Bread, lobster, baked potatoes, you name it; even peanut butter.

    Fact: iPhones are individually crafted and assembled by elves. Two reasons: Only elves have hands small enough to fit inside the darned things, and the technology is actually a form of magic; each phone has it’s own spell cast on it.

    Fact: Paris Hilton is the smartest person in the world; probably the smartest person who ever lived. She’s so smart that there are only 2 or 3 other people in the world who are smart enough to realize how freakin’ brilliant she is. The rest of us don’t have a clue.

    Fact: There are only about 100 people living in Iceland. Have you ever seen more than 100 Icelanders together at one time? Didn’t think so.

    ——————-

    This discussion needed a little more crazy.

  104. Randy Moore says:

    There has never been a rocket to take off here on earth, land at some location and take off again
    to return to it’s original destination. If one can remember in 1968 a year before the so-called moon landings,America had been in turmoil over the Vietnam War and the assasinations of
    Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King. Nixon came into power and helped to set-up this
    event to get american’s and the world to see America in a different light and it worked somewhat until the Photo’s were exposed to the public. The murders of Kennedy and King set the stage for Nixon to get into power because he ran against the Johnson administration with Hubert Humphrey.Just as in 2000 George Bush stole the election to set the stage for War and Corruption.
    If we had gone to the moon in 1969 so easily we would have casino’s there by now with the
    technology we now have.Put on a space suit and walk in Death Valley in the summer.

  105. Lily says:

    I believe all this is a hoax. After all, in the 60′s moon machines had a memory of only 32kb, less than a simple calculator. How could they control the machines to land on the moon?

  106. Lily says:

    Top reasons why I think landing on the Moon is all a hoax (and questions you can ask yourself):

    Astronauts had staged rehearsals. Videos are available(Website with all the videos and PROOF: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html)
    Why is there a rock with the prop letter “C” on it? ^link^
    Moon has 1/6 gravity as earth, so the astronauts should have been able to jump 10 feet in the air. Yet the highest they are recorded to do is 16 pathetic inches. Video above in ^link^.
    Why did the people who agreed to reveal the truth about the hoax all “died” of cancer within days or disappeared? One geologist laughed when someone asked him if the photos of the moon were real, and he mysteriously died of cancer in the next days… often their wives die too. Why is that? Cancer isn’t contagious. But secrets are.
    Why is the American flag always bright in the shadows of any pics?
    Radiation was so intense it should have melted the camera lens. Yet the pictures seem fine and the ordinary cameras could withstand -200F-200F temperature and radiation.
    That amount of radiation on the moon should have seriously killed the astronauts, or at least affected them in some way. One astronomer who stayed about 221 or so days in van Allen belt was blinded for life, yet these astros on the moon seem totally fine.
    Why is it so bright on the moon in the photos like it’s using artificial light? Moon can only reflect 7-8% of light so it should be dark… as in astronauts can be seen as shadows. Propaganda for gov’t?
    Whyare the shadows int the pictures all misalgned? Only different light sources can create this… so it’s artificial lighting.
    Why was a scientist hired by NASA collecting moon rocks in Alaska two years before the first Apollo mission?
    Neil Armstrong is a hoax himself. He knows that if he let the public know he never touched the moon, his family and himself would be in danger by US secret angents. It seems to me that he just played along.

    WHY IS THERE NO REAL CONCRETE EVIDENCE OF THIS PHENOMENAL EVENT?

    • Kyle says:

      1- Of COURSE they had a rehearsal! Do you think you could just wake up one day and know how to wear a space suit??? We’re not talking about putting on a pair of pants and sweater. It takes considerable training to learn to properly function in a spacesuit.

      2- I’ll show you a piece of toast with the Virgin Mary on it too. They say if you look hard enough for something you’ll see it. I see the C on the rock but the C on the ground is a real big stretch. I don’t see it at all tbh. The author is nothing more than a modern day thaumateurgist, staring at bones and divining bad science the whole way through.

      3- The astronauts themselves have all said they learned to take very short hops that on Earth wouldn’t have even gotten their feet off the ground. They could have taken larger leaps but to fall on their backs in those bulky suits would’ve been disasterous. Also the suits they wore weighed 170lbs so they were significantly weighed down.

      4- This is typical conspiracy theorist garbage and doesn’t even deserve a reply except to counter my parents, grandparents, and various other family members are all dead. There must be a conspiracy to kill people in my family, right? Right?? Riiiiight…

      5- The shots were taken in daylight. Just because the sky is black due to lack of atmosphere doesn’t mean you should expect nighttime like lighting.

      6- What “astronomer” was blinded? Provide facts, not lies. Astronauts have been spending extended periods of time in space since Skylab in the 70s with very little adverse effects aside from muscle and bone atrophy from zero-g. They do receive more radiation, but not a life threatening amount. As for the camera, same deal. If shielded properly from radiation there will be no melting of lenses or electronics. Anyone who has been to an Xray lab and seen the technician stand behind the wall has witnessed how humans protect themselves from radiation.

      7- See 5

      8- I don’t know anything about rocks from Alaska but I think one of the thousands of geoligists who have studied the Moon rocks would’ve noticed that they came from Earth instead. They haven’t because there is empirical and incontrovertible evidence that the rocks came from the Moon.

      9- Neil Armstrong is not a hoax. I met the guy at an Purdue engineering alumnist convention. He’s real. And so are the Moon landings.

      I applaud your efforts to think for yourself and do research but realize that the conspiracy theorists have books to sell to you. They aren’t scientists. They aren’t a primary source of information on the Moon landings. No one involved in the landings blew a single whistle. It would take incredible amount of fortune to keep everyone quiet. In otherwords it would take a lot more effort to make this hoax work than just to land on the stupid Moon. It’s not as impossible as you think to land on the Moon. You just have to know something about physics which is something the conspiracy folks obviously know very little about.

  107. Starseed says:

    I have big doubts that man has ever laid a foot on the moon. I’m not a professional astro-science person but ANYONE can distinguish how easy this event could have easily been faked.. I’m not claiming that man has ever set foot on the moon(would be really nice if someone did), but after researching bit of the info all out there on the internet- I conclude that I am now doubting if man has ever been on the moon(Not outer space- big difference!). How can they simply stop making Saturn V and still havn’t finished after some 40 years? They made many attempts back then, so why not now where technology is far more suitable then the conditions of the late 1960′s.

    I can’t just truly believe something 100% with doubts of common sense obviously laid out there.. Shouldn’t the stars be much more clearer to see on the moon?

  108. harry potter says:

    man did walk on the moon and thats that.

  109. the big guy says:

    i agree with harry. you guys are just doubting the solid truth. if you dont belive it, forget about it.

  110. joe cool says:

    I respect the opinion or whatever the NASA put into your brain but myself got to the conclution that no man had step a foot on the moon why? ’cause reading and searching from many sources one thing that I agreed is to cross van halen belt you’d need a space suit 4 meter thick made of lead and you people know how heavy is the lead just to protect the astronaut against the sun radiation and what about our technology nowdays why they haven’t get back.

  111. Jim LeBoeuf says:

    After reading NASA articles about the LRO and it’s two cameras, why had NASA opnely refused to use their high resolution camera to photo the past Apollo landing sites. NASA said they would only use that HR camera to photo future landing sites on the lunar poles for future landing sites. Now China has sent a second orbiter around the moon and their camera has more resolution than the LRO HR camera, maybe we will get the truth now? I also watched a NASA program about a year ago, the NASA spokesman openly admitted we have never had an astronaut outside of a spacecraft higher than an altitude of 300 miles above the earth. How lang can this go on, isn’t it time for the truth to surface?

    • Kyle says:

      Because the truth already surfaced about 40 years ago. We landed on the Moon and mankind walked on it’s surface.

      I don’t know what you’re talking about saying NASA “refused” to photograph the Apollo Landing sites… because they did!

      http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-07/lunar-probe-goes-camera-crazy-apollo-landing-sites

      • history says:

        As Reuters reported on August 15, 2006, “The U.S. government has misplaced the original recording of the first moon landing, including astronaut Neil Armstrong’s famous ‘one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind’ … Armstrong’s famous moonwalk, seen by millions of viewers on July 20, 1969, is among transmissions that NASA has failed to turn up in a year of searching, spokesman Grey Hautaluoma said. ‘We haven’t seen them for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t turned up,’ Hautaluoma said … In all, some 700 boxes of transmissions from the Apollo lunar missions are missing.”

        yeah, right.

  112. rawa says:

    I think you are right

  113. Man on the moon was a very sophisticated scheme to create a need for greater taxes. Go to Flagstaff Arizona and see hands on for yourself the equipment they supposedly put on the moon… you might get a good laugh. Then go check out the desert around Flagstaff, and tell me, does that not exactly resemble the so called lunar landscape to a T? Hmmm Much like the so called global warming scenario cooked up by Gore and co. My is it ever so cold in Europe right now though. I guess this colder winter than any on record is going to put a damper on their plans for a global carbon tax… global warming, man on the moon two sides of the same coin. YOUR GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO TAKE YOUR MONEY ANY WAY POSSIBLE. One word, or name to be precise, about the so called moon mission: Kubrick.

  114. harmony at flixton girls high school says:

    i have read alll of this statment and i stilll dontt no weather i beleve anyone walked on the moon there are manyy pics but i do not no !!!!!! wee need prooth !!! x

    • geoff boxer says:

      Harmony, are you another illiterate school girl. Don’t waste your time here. Learn your English lessons

  115. Joachim says:

    I have been wondering this my self!
    That i have also been wondering is that why havent people been to the moon ever since? Well, i know that it was a race against Russia but it’s a little weird why they haven’t investigated the moon more and try to find out more about it? And how could the flag flap with no wind?

    From Joachim
    Norway

    • Kelly says:

      I agree with everything you mention, Joachim…. why have others not gone up there?

      Such a weird hoax… was this the US simply trying to claim another ‘first’ over all other countries?!

    • 130IqMan says:

      Joachim,

      There is no air resistance in space so any thing that starts to move is going to take a very long time to stop, this is because space is a vacuum.

  116. Kyle says:

    @atombomb

    The reason mirrors were placed on the Moon was for two reasons:

    1) Precision
    2) The distance between the Moon and the Earth is not static. Every moment the Moon is very slowly creeping away from the Earth. The Sun will have long burned up and possibly even swallowed the Earth before the Moon leaves orbit though. In fact it was these mirrors that confirmed this, nailed down the rate of orbital decay, and gave us a precise measurement of mass for the Moon.

    THAT is why NASA placed mirrors on the Moon. I hope that answers your question.

  117. Chetan says:

    As you mentioned above that “The moon is actually a heavenly planet. The living conditions on the moon are far, far superior to the living conditions on the earth. To enter the heavenly planets one needs to have the qualifications to enter. You can not enter a heavenly planet by force. Srila Prabhupada gives the example that even on this planet one can not travel from India to the United States without the required visa and passport. So similarly entry into the moon planet is not possible without the required qualifications.”

    So living entities are living on surface of moon or inside moon planet or they are invisible to our material eyes or our artificial satellites.

    • Yes. The moon is a heavenly planet, chandra-loka and very pious people can go there. So if one is not very pious he can not go there.

      For whatever reason the scientists do not have a correct idea about the moon.

      Living entities are on the surface of the moon, they will be everywhere, just like they are everywhere on this planet. You find living entities on the surface, in the ground, in the water, flying in the air, etc. Moon is the same. The living entities on the moon are more spiritually advanced so their bodies may be more subtle than ours and they may be almost invisible to us.

      What we can see is very, very limited. So we may not be able to see them–but that does not mean that they are not there.

      Also I am sure you know we are doubtful that man has ever been to the moon. What they tell us about the moon and how they went there and where it is does not match up with our information about these things. Srila Prabhuapda often commented on this and his feeling is they did not go to the moon and even I heard him say recently on a tape that it is most likely all done in some studio in the desert in the US somewhere.

      Of course practically no one believes we went to the moon now. It’s been over forty years and we have never going back to the moon and we have never gone anywhere else, so it really is very, very unlikely that we ever went to the moon and also very unlikely that we have any idea at all what it is like on the moon.

      Science is full of so many lies unfortunately. We take them too seriously. They actually know very little about the word and the universe around us.

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  118. Glenna Gambrell says:

    i never believed that man even went up that far. they had one chance to prove it to me when all those “regular” people went up, but they blew them up!! i think they went down into the oceans, if they indeed went anywhere at all. by the way they move, the way the light shines, that everything is perfectly round-like it was photographed through a lens of some sort. it’s weird how no matter how close to the sun they get, it’s still pitch black dark and light only shines right in front of them-they way it would be underwater.

  119. Chetan says:

    Hare Krsna Madhudvisa

    Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

    Just want to clear my doubts, according to me there is a difference between “Chandra loka” – Heavenly Planet Moon and this moon which appear during night.

    “Chandra loka” – Heavenly Planet Moon might be above the Sun planet.

    What we see waxing and waning of moon during night is just a natural satellite. For example Saturn Planet has so many small natural satellite bound by centripetal and centrifugal force/s of that planet…

    Request you to advise…

    Your Servant
    Chetan

    • Hare Krishna Chetan

      The moon we see is Chandra-Loka Prabhu, and it is a heavenly planet.

      The sun and the moon appear to be doing the same thing in the sky Prabhu. We can make a hypothisis also that the sun is a sattelite of the earth, going around the earth because of the earth’s gravity. But it is not. But it’s movements look just like the sun in the sky. It rises and sets and goes around the sky just like the sun. Only it moves through all the signs of the zodiac in 28 days but it takes the sun 365 days to do this. So why do we think the situation of the movements of the sun and moon are different?

      Actually the scientists do not know about these things Prabhu. There are many possible theories and the scientific process is to select the theory that seems most likely. The theory the best predicts the observed evidence. So they have a predictive model that works quite well. Still just because they have a model that works quite well in predicting what we observe in the sky that does not mean that their model is correct…

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

      • kishore gupta says:

        hare krishna

        are you saying that we have never sent probes to the moon, jupiter, saturn, their moons, mecury, etc. and that all these pictures are all fake and one big conspiracy?

        • Ron Expeth says:

          It is only manned missions to the moon which we say were faked, not the current robotic missions to the moon and planets. The reason? Deep Space (not to be confused with the low earth orbit of the shuttle) is far too dangerous for humans to survive in. When they come up with a fool-proof 100% method of protecting man from the fatal radiation out there then they will be able to go to the moon. A radically modified space craft is needed and also suitable protection would need to added to space suits otherwise man could not leave the space craft once he had landed. There is no way to achieve this level of protection today which is why nobody has ever landed on the moon.

          • We are only talking about the manned missions to the moon being fake here.

            Obviously they are doing some level of exploration in space and if you throw something up there with a big rocket behind it and push it out into space it is going to go out somewhere and it can send some radio messages back, you can have some remote control and some boosters to steer it in the direction you want it to go. This is not a very big achievement. And surely they can do this.

            But transporting 3 men and a small truck and landing on the moon and walking around and sending back live television coverage in the 60′s when to do live television coverage on this planet you needed a huge truck full of equipment…

            It is ridiculous. Who could believe this rubbish?

            And then they get in that tiny little thing that landed on the moon and fly it back to the earth….

            People are crazy if they believe this fairy tale…

            And that was the mid sixties, now fifty years later technology has advanced thousands of times. There was nothing then. Computers were practically nonexistent. They just discovered transistors…. So primitive you can not imagine.

            And now, with such wonderful technology we have no idea at all how we could send men to the moon… No one has ever gone since the 60′s and no one has any idea how they can go to the moon in the future also…

            If someone climbs Mt. Everest, then others will follow. If someone goes to the moon, others will follow. Because no one has followed for fifty years that in itself is very strong proof that we never had men walking on the moon…

            Madhudvisa

  120. Raj Mitra says:

    I believe YES man has been to moon… Not a big deal… Its all mathematics and shared time physics… It was an American Dream to go first… and its ended nobody else did in years.. Its not computers.. Becoz Computers didn’t made humans though Human made it… We didn’t have CNC routers or Auto cad Rel 14 but though we have TAJ MAHAL… Correct? We have Piramids Correct? We had Mayan Calender Correct? We have YOU… This is ridiculous you are questioning about Moon Landing? NOW WE R PLANNING TO GOING TO MARS BECOZ WE ALREADY SAW MOON HAS NOTHING ON IT… NOT EVEN WATER… BUT WE GOT SNOW ON MARS TO MELT. MAKE WATER AND LIVE ON TO IT..

    Jai Shri Krishna…

  121. Please says:

    I still have not seen one thing that is needed for this conspiracy to have happened. Motive?? To beat the russians to the moon? For country morale? Give me something better please.

    • Jimbob says:

      or capitalsim vs communisum, i think that was the race wasnt it?

  122. Abraham J Forsink says:

    Not everyone may go with my take on this matter, but I strongly believe that man did land on the moon, and that people who think otherwise are just trying to find something to argue about.
    Many people, myself included, believe that man walked on the moon. It is a matter that is strongly debated, even today, and there have been a lot of people saying that some actors just had it filmed in a set and NASA sent out pictures. But there are many flaws in this theory.

    Abraham J. Forsink

  123. julie gayton says:

    In 1992 when I lived in southern California I heard the moon walk was a hoax. They needed the money for something else. I suspect it was done inside of a building, that is why there are no stars showing. Michael Jackson did the moon walk backwards. I wonder what he knew?

  124. Jagat Candra Das says:

    My proof that man did not land is just one picture. That of the foot print with fine moon dust caked to form the imprint of an astronauts boot. Without moisture in the dust such a thing is impossible. Try making foot prints in dry dust or sand ! with no atmosphere u cannot have moisture. period. No dust clouds during take off or landing, no dust on foot pads of lunar module, etc. are further dust related anomalies. It was a desperate cold war PR exercise that politicians forced on science !

    • Dude says:

      It has been proven that a boot print can in fact be made in a vacuum with zero moisture. Period. You are incorrect and you have no proof otherwise. Just because you say something is true does not make it true.

  125. dan says:

    my question is this; how did they get the lunar land rover on the moon, in the days before the shuttle craft?

    • Hi Dan,

      It is a very good question.

      It is supposed to fold up and fit in a small corner of the tiny luna landing module which is barely big enough to fit the three astronauts in…

      There are a lot of strange things about this “man on the moon” story…

      Madhudvisa dasa

  126. Brittany says:

    As soon as i read this article i watched the relevant videos on YouTube,i didnot see the flag fluttering quite sure its the original one.

  127. Brittany says:

    As soon as i read this article i watched the relevant videos on YouTube,i didn’t see the flag fluttering im quite sure its the original video that i watched

  128. kyle says:

    That is actually incorrect Madhudvisa. Any HAM Radio enthusiast can build a large dish and pick up telemetry from a number of probes far beyond Earth’s orbit. Please educate yourself before you go spouting off nonsense about things you do not understand.

    • Hi Kyle

      Yes. They can obviously send up a rocket with some radio transmitter on it and it can go outside the atmosphere and transmit some signal from relatively close that some ham radio operator can pick up for sure. There is no question about this.

      That, however, does not prove that they have probes orbiting Jupiter or just about to exit the universe… There is no way at all that a ham radio operator can pick up these signals…

      That we simply have to have blind faith in NASA. There is no way anyone can verify this independently.

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  129. Chetan says:

    Hare Krsna Madhudvisa dasa

    Did dinosaurs really exist…?

    • Hare Krishna Chetan

      If you will read Krsna Book you can see that there were some very big monsters in Vrindavan 5000 years ago…

      The situation on the earth is changing and we know in previous ages the men were much bigger and lived longer so it wold not be so strange if there were also big lizards and big elephants, etc…

      It is not something that Srila Prabhupada speaks of in his books one way or the other.

      But of course intelligent men have been there right from the beginning of the creation. Lord Brahma is the most highly evolved and most intelligent creature in the universe and he was the first living entity in the universe. So there is no question of evolution, gradually reaching higher and better forms of life, culminating in the human form after millions and millions of years. No. The most highly evolved human form, Lord Brahma, was the first born living entity.

      So science have got it very wrong. Therefore if there were dinosaurs there was also intelligent men around at the same time…

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  130. Jagat Chandra Das says:

    While some of the listed moon landing anomalies have be explained well by NASA & others who support the Moon landing, answers to several major questions remain unconvincing. The flag fluttering is one such issue that NASA harps on with triumph. But lets us not paint the whole episode with such little victories. In the over all tally the scales tilt in favor of the Hoax theory.

    The fact that they dropped the moon trips altogether is another indicator. Since traveling in space once u get past the pull of gravity requires very little fuel the moon trips will not be a lot more expensive than the Shuttle trips. And yet they just don’t do it anymore! Why ignore the real estate ( and a prime one at that given the great view !) and struggle with space stations? Just a little fuel would have put them all within the moons gravity with smaller crafts that wont need a lot of fuel to descend & take off.

  131. Prove It ! says:

    The people from NASA are quite cionvinced that Man landed on the moon, principly because they have adjusted the story since the first day. However, they can do two things to prove they landed on the moon with all that antique technology from the 1960′s

    1. Send an identical craft to the moon today, same construction, same build, and same technical specifications as per Appollo 11. Land and return to Earth safely, this timw with China, Russia and all the world watching with all the modern technology tracking equipment available.

    2. Swing HUBBLE around to take a High Definition shot of the landing sights, moon vehicle tracks, and even perhaps locate the totally inplausible “moon buggy” vehicle used in the later missions. If Earth satelites can resolve images to within 5mm from 300km in space, surely the moon landing sites and vehicles can be easily located ?

  132. This is surprise to see that a Krishna- Conscious Website is talking all about such earthly matters!

    @all people here,
    Being a Hindu, I would say that this is Not a fair place to discuss such issues.
    I love Krishna, and i believe in Science too.
    And believing in science in no way reduces my love towards Lord!

    A Hindu is also a scientific man, so i don’t criticize the effort of any country, But it is the Hatred that should be criticized.

  133. Kyle says:

    Hubble doesn’t work like that. An object the size of the Moon lander is far too small on object even for Hubble to resolve. But the Indians, coincidentally enough, viewed the Apollo landing sites with their Chandrayaan-1 Lunar orbiter. Do some research before you make yourself out to be a fool.

  134. Lars Andersen says:

    The Russians never denied it that the Americans landed on the moon. They could follow the radio and data transmission from the moon, even if was coded they would still know it was from the moon.
    Saying that they are in on the hoax too would take away the whole meaning for the conspiracy of the moon landing.
    Also the do also use the mirrors on the moon placed by the apollo 11.

    • geoff boxer says:

      You are wrong, Lars. The Russians did not, in genereal believe the US landed men on the moon. Check out Wikipedia and learn the facts. Alexander Popov, for one, dismissed the whole project as laughable.

      • James says:

        Geoff boxer: Wikipedia is not a relavent source of information; they are not allowed as a source for college student of ANY university due to incorrect facts, data, dates, etc. Do not use Wikipedia as a source for “facts”. Please prove your point with a more reputible source.

  135. Don says:

    just want to contribute to the discussion with a question…

    why weren’t there any follow-up trips to the moon?

    i mean, with all of the technological advancement in the passed decades, NASA wouldn’t have the reason not to go back.

    or with the current technology everyone have right now, lying becomes more difficult…

  136. kyle says:

    @Don

    There is very little point in sending men to the Moon at this point when unmanned craft can do the job of scientific discovery. The only point in sending man to the Moon today would be to establish (semi) permanent laboratories and bases but NASA lacks the funding to do that these days. They barely have money to put craft in orbit around the Earth today. So it is not a question about the will to do it or the technology to do it. It is a lack of funding to do it because we waste our money on frivolities.

  137. HaveSeenTheTapes says:

    The company I worked for has recovered for future generations the old telemetry computer tapes of the Nimbus, Gemini and Apollo missions, before they became impossible to read and lost forever. New technology had to be invented to read those tapes as they were in such bad condition. There are public photos of some of those tapes. The tapes themselves no longer exist, just a picture of the yellow paper labels. The plastic in them was used to help develop a breakthrough technology that converts plastic into diesel.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6BQFqd9DBQ

  138. Kyle says:

    You sound like a real expert on rocketry Geoff. Anymore brilliant insight on why you think something is a hoax because you completely lack any common knowledge on the subject?

    • Geoff Boxer says:

      Thanks for our reply. I usually apply logic to most things. By the time I reached 4 I realised Father Christmas was a lie – By the time I reached 12 I realised people don’t go to heaven when they die and religion is just another fairy story. And, at the age of 74 and studying the ‘facts’ put out by NASA, it’s obvious to me that, over 40 years ago, a manned flight could not have possible gone to the moon and returned. You saw the huge power needed to get a rocket up into space and the ‘returning’ astronauts splashing down in the sea and yet they calmly landed on the moon, unhitched their equipment, played around for a few hours, sent back pictures and sound to the earth, went back to their rocket and took off without a hitch. Just study the pictures. Don’t they look phoney? Speed up their moon walking and you can see their actions are slowed down film just like an old B movie.

  139. wasak says:

    What about The Dark side of the moon? A big Question??????

  140. Kyle says:

    “You saw the huge power needed to get a rocket up into space and the ‘returning’ astronauts splashing down in the sea and yet they calmly landed on the moon, unhitched their equipment, played around for a few hours, sent back pictures and sound to the earth, went back to their rocket and took off without a hitch.”

    Japan proved that you can actually get to the Moon with the equivalent power of your everyday car. Orbital mechanics can and have been used to get us to the farthest reaches of our own solar system and beyond. The Apollo missions sped the process up a bit with some oversized boosters, but it was definitely not beyond our capabilities at the time.

    “Just study the pictures. Don’t they look phoney? Speed up their moon walking and you can see their actions are slowed down film just like an old B movie.”

    We can stick you in some weights and scuba gear at the bottom of the ocean and speed you up and you can tell me when we speed the footage up that you were faking it… I’m really not sure what you are talking about.

    There’s just far too much evidence that we landed on the Moon and the “evidence” for a hoax is easily reputed with sound scientific explanation. If you want to live in your conspiratorial world, feel free.

    • Kyle I admit some of the arguments people put may be week but honestly you say “There is far too much evidence that we landed on the Moon” and that is just a complete lie.

      As you know I have looked into this and you have to consider the possibility at least that it may have been faked. I am not saying 100% for sure that it was faked but there are certainly many indications that it may have been faked and you have to admit to that. There was certainly a motivation to fake it in that cold-war era and there was a political need for America to establish there superiority over Russia and the President had promised to put men on the moon and NASA’s funding a future existence depended on it. You know it is not a far stretch of the imagination to think that if NASA actually could not put men on the moon to fulfill the USA’s political ambitions and to ensure their future funding and jobs they may fake a moon landing.

      So if you consider like this you can not consider anything that NASA tells us as proof. You can not just blindly accept everything NASA says as the absolute truth which is I think what you are doing and that is what you call your proof. You consider the words of NASA as proof but it is possible they are not telling the truth.

      We are looking for independent proof that man can go to the moon or that man has been on the moon and so far I have not found any. The only thing is the luna-lazer-ranging experiment but it does not prove anything because even before there was any going to the moon both the US and Russia were firing lazers at the moon and getting returns back. So you do not need to have a reflector on the moon to get a reflection back from the moon. You know the famous ‘moon rooks’ turn out to be very similar to meteorites that have fallen to earth and may well have been collected on earth also. The photos and the films are full of contradictions and discrepancies. NASA admit to having a moon set and shooting promotional films and photos on their moon set and they admit to having a satellite between the earth and moon capable of transmitting all the telemetry that would be coming from a space ship on the way to the moon for transmitting fake mission data for training purposes. We have all seen the photos of their huge to scale globe of the moon. There are just so many problems with their story. Any sane person can see this.

      If we actually achieved such a great technological advance in the 60′s and were able to successfully put men on the moon many times this is the first time in scientific history that we have forgotten how to do it… You know we can not go to the moon now. So many countries have said they will go but can not send manned missions. Even the US, George Bush said they would go but then discovered that NASA can not go… So it does not make sense. If we could go to the moon in the 60′s then we should be able to go to the other planets by now and after more than 50 years we should be having bases on the moon and space travel should be routine.

      But you know we can not do anything practical now except launch satellites into earth orbit and the US have finished the space shuttle now which could not get out of earth orbit and their great successes are only the Hubble space telescope in earth orbit and the space station also in earth orbit. It seems we can not get out of earth orbit, at lest for manned missions. That is the fact. That is the reality.

      And the reality is there is no proof that we ever had men walking on the moon. Not a shred of proof. Nothing.

      The only “proof” that you claim to have is that you believe what NASA is telling you. You do not consider that NASA may be lying. But if you consider that possibility you will very soon realize that you have no proof whatsoever that men ever walked on the moon.

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

    • Geoff Boxer says:

      Kyle, You say “Japan proved that you can actually get to the Moon with the equivalent power of your everyday car. Orbital mechanics can and have been used to get us to the farthest reaches of our own solar system and beyond”.
      Can you let me know where you got this interesting piece of information? Regarding the slow motion: Please watch the footage and then speed it and you can see the original footage is just that; A normal film slowed to look like reduced gravity.
      ” We can stick you in some weights and scuba gear at the bottom of the ocean and speed you up and you can tell me when we speed the footage up that you were faking it…” How childish, when having a rational discussion

  141. James Simmons says:

    I was a devotee from 1977-80. I read nearly all of Srila Prabhupada’s books, including Bhagavad Gita As It Is and Srimad Bhagavatam, Fifth Canto, Part Two. Consider what a devotee must believe if he wants to agree with all of Srila Prabhupada’s purports:

    1). The stars are not faraway suns, but are planets that shine by reflected light from the one Sun in the Universe.

    2). The Moon is much farther away from the Earth than the Sun is, and is a heavenly planet populated by demigods. Prabhupada’s argument against the moon trip is that the Moon is *much* farther away than the scientists think it is, and the demigods would not allow the astronauts to land there because they lack the spiritual qualification to be there (unlike Narada Muni, who can travel anywhere in the three worlds).

    3). The Earth is somehow composed of islands shaped like concentric circles with oceans of different substances between them. (Sugar cane juice, ghee, liquor, etc.) The whole thing looks like a bull’s eye. We should *not* interpret this to mean that the Earth is flat, however. That would be ridiculous. Anyone who has spent as much time on airplanes as Srila Prabhupada knows that the Earth is a globe. But somehow there are these circular islands too, even though satellite photos don’t show them.

    In Srila Prabhupada Lilamrita we find out that Prabhupada wished to build a planetarium showing the Vedic version of the Universe. Someone offered to put up the money, but nobody could make a diagram of how the Universe was supposed to look. Even a professional Vedic astronomer they hired could not do it. Now *I* could do it, but my version would have a flat Earth, and that would be ridiculous.

    The simplest devotee argument to make against the Moon trips would be that the Moon is farther away than the scientists think it is. Scientists have known this distance at least since Jules Verne wrote From The Earth To The Moon And A Voyage Round It, and probably long before that. Yet the posters here seem to accept that unmanned vehicles have been sent to the Moon. I don’t see how anyone could believe that and still be a staunch, Bhagavatam-believing devotee.

    To those who wonder why the Hubble telescope can’t see artifacts left behind by the Apollo trips, wouldn’t a better use of these telescopes be to look for evidence that Chandraloka is inhabited by demigods?

    When I was a devotee you could reject Vedic astronomy and still be a devotee in good standing. You just never talked about it. Apparently this is no longer possible.

    • Hare Krishna James

      As you know I am sure we are all eternally servants of Krishna. Our devotional service can be covered but our original constitutional position is that we are eternally servants of Krishna and as your time as an active devotee I am sure you felt this and at the time actually knew that you were a spirit soul and not this material body and that your purpose in life was far beyond this material world.

      The thing is we so much believe what the scientists have told us to be absolute fact and we have accepted their world-view as fact so we can not consider that it could be wrong. The scientists know very little about the universe and can see only a very tiny part of it and like the frog in the well have made great speculations based on their imperfect material sense perception and have given us such wonders as the big bang theory and evolution and so many other theories that have gradually become our world view and which most people accept as fact.

      But they do not know. I know that the description of the universe in the Srimad-Bhagavatam is correct and from that we can at least understand that the knowledge of the scientists is so tiny and they can not grasp the ‘big picture’ so-to-speak because there is no way they can see the big picture.

      Anyhow we do not accept the authority of the scientists. We accept the authority of Krishna and actually the scientists are always changing their ideas about everything and Krishna is always
      constant. So even if you believe in science today they will have changed it in 50 years and you will find out that you were wrong. But if we have faith in Krishna then we have the correct information…

      I agree that it is very difficult for us to understand the description of the universe in the Srimad-Bhagavatam but it is correct. And ultimately all the details will be revealed…

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

      • James Simmons says:

        Madhuvisa,

        The Fifth Canto describes the universe with:

        A flat Earth that includes circular islands nobody has ever seen and a mountain many times higher than Everest which has people living on it.

        Rotation of stars around the Pole star not just apparent motion caused by rotation of the Earth, but actual circumambulation of stars around the pole star. The Earth is immobile. The Pole star (or someone living there) did something to make the other stars worship it by circumambulation.

        Stars that are actually planets shining by reflected light from the only sun in the universe.

        Oceans of liquor, sugar cane juice, ghee, etc. on the Earth.

        A big mountain that the Sun god rides around on in his chariot.

        A Moon that is farther away from the Earth than the Sun is, and which is populated.

        You don’t need to have an Apollo program to realize that this does not describe the universe we live in. A grade school child could prove this.

        I became a devotee in spite of these teachings. These teachings were not a factor in making me leave, but they certainly would have been if I had been forced to accept them.

        • Hare Krishna James

          You do not realize that these descriptions are given by entities who can see these things. We can not see these things because we are no more than frogs in a well and we can only see the little bit of sky above the hole at the top of the well. That is all we know about the universe. And we have speculated so many wonderful things. But actually the universe is not like the speculations of the modern scientists at all. You have too much faith in your senses and do not realize they are imperfect and are not capable of giving you complete information about anything.

          So the Bhagavatam description of the universe is correct. The earth is stationary and the stars are all moving around the pole-star and there is only one sun in this universe and that sun is providing all the light for the whole universe. And you know I think that the Bhagavatam provides detalied descriptions of how this light from the one sun gets reflected all the way around the universe with golden mountains and other reflective surfaces. All these things are not above the hole in the top of our well so we can not see them. But because we can not see them does not mean that they do not exist. The causal ocean