Published on October 6th, 2015 | 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…

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedin
If you Love Me Distribute My Books -- Srila Prabhupada

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

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

  1. Keith Colinger says:

    I am 40 I think if man went to the moon in the sixties on a bottle rocket . Know they should be able to go there easy in the new type shuttles
    It’s on tcm right know and it looks super fake if they went back then. At this day and time they would be best Western and McDonald’s .

  2. L. Hanmanth Reddy says:

    No doubt, the Moon landing is one of the greatest hoaxes of all time.

  3. Manny Cruz says:

    It’s sad that NASA had to lie about the moon landing just to get on the map.
    Expose those for stealing our tax money and creating the greatest HOAX on America.

  4. Linda Green says:

    Even as a child I was confused….why NASA could not make the trip again. And when NASA made the attempts just to leave our atmosphere these vessels exploded. I am not a physics but I do have a curious mind. Thank you for you articles and your insight. Im sure there are many others who feel the same…biggest hoax ever.

    • Yes. It is insane. They have so much trouble even sending a rocket up to the space station that is only a couple of hundred miles up in earth orbit but they would have us believe that they sent many manned missions to the moon and back way back in the 60s with no problems. A round trip of about 500,000 miles… They can’t even reliably travel 200 miles today…. And they can’t go to the moon today. Even NASA say today they have to overcome many problems before they will be able to send men to the moon. Today they say maybe they will be able to send men to the moon in 20 years. Maybe, perhaps…

      So obviously if they can’t send men to the moon today they couldn’t send men to the moon in the 1960’s with technology that was so primitive compared to the technology we have today…

      • Keith Colinger says:

        Anyone if they watch the program close.If they have knocking around since can tell it’s fake as hell. Star trek looks more real than the moon landings so that pretty much sums it up for me and a lot of others I know.but some people believe it and will argue over it but that’s usually folks that are super nieve

  5. anil says:

    Hare Krishna .all glory of Shrila parbhupad.nasa easily cheat the people.they r rascal but people also become a rascal with nasa .they in darkness of ignorance .so please chant hare Krishna and be happy .hare Krishna.

  6. James says:

    Why did they not comment it was either hot or cold when standing on the moon.As the dark side can drop to -338 and the other side can be hotter than the Sahara.?

  7. alex says:

    Mythbusters guys are stupid. Anyone refer them for argument is stupid. We never went to moon for many reasons. One we really do not have technology. Someof the moon photo black goes to gray instead of dots like any normal photo. That is clear evidence of hoaxing. Also many dark images has no stars. I understand bright lunar landscape you may not see stars but dark image no stars?. Anyone believe in Moon landing are just NASA Muslim (believers)

  8. Max says:

    I knew this was fake!!! When I saw the flag being blown by the wind I was loosing my shit, I stayed days making researches and making sure if there is any wind on the moon.

  9. ravichandran says:

    us landing may graphics the mirr and indian mars sattelight are graphics

  10. The Dude says:

    The great hoaxes are all connected to the Talmud and FreeMasonry: The Holocaust, Dinosaurs, the Ball Earth and Gravity, Evolution and many false flag attacks predicating “justified warfare”. None of these withstand serious academic, scientific, or philosophical scrutiny, research or detective work. Ask yourselves why the Earth’s horizon appears flat and at eye level from a plane. Ask yourselves why a man who banned usury and vivisection has been demonized like no other in history. Why has the dinosaur myth been so rigidly propped up whilst destroying the careers of serious anthropologists and archaeologists since the fabrication of “Dinosaurians” in the 19th century? It’s all to deprive you of your natural senses, observations, Instincts and reverence for the divine – whatever you faith might be – and defer to the “religion of science” and “authority”. Do some serious work before you begin ad hominem mockery and insults, as I’m sure a vast majority will do, no doubt…

  11. Michael Fischer says:

    Folks,it all comes down to one single point :
    There are no landing strips on the moon,the whole surface is highly uneven.
    I estimate that of 100 landing intents, in one or two cases the module might stand more or less upright without having fallen over, or crashed.
    However, NASA out of 6 intents “got” 6 (six) perfectly positioned modules.100% success.
    It would have been an absolutely INSANE risk.
    Imagine a single mishap,and then two men starving slowly on the moon.-Unthinkable.

  12. Will says:

    That government lies to its citizens is no surprise.
    This BBC documentary does a great job of explaining this event: http://youtu.be/Zj5r3jXhV2Q

    What does this have to do with loving Krsna?
    Why is this subject causing fighting and insults between those who chant Krsna’s beautiful name?

    Shame on all of you.

  13. Will says:

    Why in the world is this important to the Hare Krsna movement?

    • It is important because Srila Prabhupada pointed out way back in the late 50’s that this moon going was nonsense and it has turned out that it was nonsense. Russia never ended up sending anyone to the moon and the US obviously lied about it. They claim they had many successful return trips to the moon [half a million miles round trip] but since the Apollo missions not a single man has even left earth orbit. All they have done since then is made round trips up to the space station and back down [it is about 200 miles up only].

      And now, 60 years later with technology thousands of times better, we can not send men out of earth orbit. What to speak of sending men to the moon. We can not even get them out of the earth’s orbit.

      So if we can not do it today then we could not do it in the 60’s either.

      Anyhow it is just an example of the cheating lying scientists. They are such rascals. That is a major theme of Krishna consciousness. Defeating the rascal scientists. And NASA’s bogus moon landings is perhaps the most outrageous cheating that science has ever done…

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  14. Four Lads says:

    I love America, but it is impossible to go to the moon.

  15. jonas mhula says:

    so all the moon landing is a lie,including the 3 latest man whom the media claimed they went to the moon….its a lie?…the amarican and south african..forgot the other one?

    • The media did not claim that three men went to the moon recently?

      No one has even left low earth orbit since the Apollo missions in the 60’s and 70’s. Then they were supposedly able to safely take men from the earth to the moon and bring them back home safely. A round trip journey of about 1/2 a million miles. Since then they have only been able to fly men up to the Space station a few hundred miles up only. And now they can not even fly to the space station safely. Two of the US shuttles blew up and killed all the people in them and now the only country that dares to put men into space is Russia and they only go up to the space station a few hundred miles up…

      So obviously they never sent men to the moon. They do not know how to send men to the moon now. They do not have the technology to send men to the moon now, so they did not have this technology in the 60’s. It was all faked.

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  16. Nidhi says:

    HARE KRISHNA PRABHUJI
    If a place has weak gravity (i.e. 1/6th of earth ) then its not possible to land on that surface ,because things having considerable mass will surely float as taught to us in science so conclusion :no one put a step on moon simple.

    • Hare Krishna Nidhi

      It is an idea but I do not think your idea is correct. If a place has weak gravity, (1/6 of earth) then I think things will weigh much less there. But that does not mean that they will float. It is not that on earth that heavy things fall to the earth and light things float. In fact heavy things and light things both fall to the earth at the same rate. So on a planet with less gravity heavy things and light things are also going to fall at the same rate. Not that heavy things will fall and light things will float…

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  17. An Indian Hindu says:

    Hello all.
    I admit that western governments aren’t really all that credible. Take the claim by Colin Powell and others that Saddam Hussein had amassed Weapons of Mass Destruction. However, ISKCON isn’t credible with space issues either. For example, in my copy of the Bhagavad Gita As It Is (17th printing, September 2000), Page 534 states :

    Of the Adityas I am Visnu, of lights I am the radiant sun, of the Maruts I am Marici, and among the stars I am the moon.

    The purport of the above verse, according to Prabhupada (given on the same page) is :

    There are twelve Adityas … represents Krsna.
    Among the stars, the moon is the most prominent at night, and thus the moon represents Krsna. It appears from this verse that the moon is one of the stars; therefore the stars that twinkle in the sky also reflect the light of the sun. The theory that there are many suns within the universe is not accepted by Vedic literature. The sun is one, and as by the reflection of the sun the moon illuminates, so also do the stars. Since Bhagavad-gita indicates herein that the moon is one of the stars, the twinkling stars are not suns but are similar to the moon.

    Thank goodness our science classes are not run by ISKCON. What do you say all you people with names that identify you as servants of Krishna (Madhusudana Dasa, etc)?

    • Yes. It is a fact. There is only one sun in this universe and all the stars are like the moon.

      The scientists actually have no idea at all what is going on in the universe.

      Of course you are brainwashed from birth with the scientist’s ideas. But they are wrong…

    • Steve says:

      Hello Indian Hindu!
      I would make a correction in your reply; of course Saddam had, and used “weapons of mass destruction”. You can easily find this proof by “searching” ” Kurds + Saddam + gas”. Several thousands in mass graves. You don’t need a nuke to have a WMD.

      Now the real question is “was Saddam and his WMD’s a threat to the USA and world?” If you do some more homework, you will find Saddam gave The U.N. the runaround for several years under sanctions and inspections. He also bragged (verbal threats) that he would do bad things. Saddam and his cronies were very very bad people. It’s really too bad we couldn’t have had a true global coalition to fight this violence against innocent people of the world. Some countries and religions just aren’t interested in saving innocent people (ahem). Search “Saddam + France + Germany + oil deals” to find out why they didn’t join.

      As far as this moon conspiracy theory, and the credibility of this website, the honorable Madhudvisa dasa’s reply to you says it all. Not interested in honest sincere debate. It’s his way or not at all. Sometimes you have to “compromise”, also known as rethink what you know. No amount of evidence would convince the honorable Madhudvisa dasa. There are websites that answer every single question at the top of this page, and yet…not interested. This to me smacks of disingenuous conversation. That means they aren’t, never were, nor ever will seriously consider the evidence presented. Dishonest.

      If a person thinks there are no other stars in the universe but Sol, well ZERO credibility. Sometimes, a measuring instrument is the truth. Sometimes our eyes lie. And our fault-filled human teachers as well.

      • Hare Krishna Steve

        I understand everything you are saying and understand your world view. Of course I was also like you many years ago and accepted everything that I was taught in school. The western world view.

        We are programmed if you like. The ‘reality’ we accept about the world around us is something we learn rather than experience.

        Your Saddam example is a good way to understand this. You have no actual personal experience of the situation. You have never been to that country. You do not know Saddam, you have never heard him speak. You have not spoken with the people of his country. You do not know anything at all. You have been fed information on the situation by the US controlled media system which is a propaganda organization and has the purpose of controlling the opinion and ideas of the public and educating them to think in a particular way. So you have accepted this propaganda and are repeating it. You have no personal knowledge about what you are saying. You have heard it form an authority [the US media] and you are just repeating what they say. So you 100% trust and believe in the US media and just believe what they say is true. So if they lie to you then you are mislead.

        It is the same with the moon. You have no idea at all. You have never been to the moon. You have no personal way of verifying if the NASA astronauts went to the moon or not. You just have blind faith in NASA and totally accept and believe whatever they say. So if they lie to you you will believe the lies and be mislead.

        If there is any actual evidence that proves without a doubt that the NASA astronauts flew to the moon and safely returned many times with stone-age 1960’s technology [a 500,000 mile round trip] and today the USA, with technology that has improved thousands of times since the 60s, is totally unable to even send men up to the space station safely. That is only 200 miles up! The US can not even safely send a cargo rocket up to the space station [200 miles] with today’s technology… Yet you would have us believe they had perfectly reliable technology [developed in about 6 years mind you] that enabled them to make multiple manned missions to the moon. It is a comedy story if it was not so sad.

        So realistically you are bordering on insanity. If you are going to believe in such a fairy tale story. People do believe in fairy tales. People do believe in the Easter Bunney, people believe in Santa Claus and people believe in NASA.

        As far as the nature of the sun, the moon and the other stars, you and the scientists have no idea about that. All we can experience of the stars is they appear to us to be very tiny shining dots in the sky. That is the only actual information we have about the stars. Everything else the scientists tell you about the stars is speculation. I means theories, guesses, ideas. And after some time these theories start to become part of our world-view and we start to accept them as facts and they become part of our understanding and experiencing of the universe. After some time we forget that most of our ‘knowledge’ about the universe is not based on facts at all, rather it is derived from speculation and theory only.

        So all we know about the stars is they are tiny shinning dots in the sky. Exactly what they are we do not know. That is speculation. But we have actual knowledge given in the Vedic literature, that is not man-made knowledge. That is knowledge that comes from the creator of the universe. And the creator of the universe is the one who actually understands His creation. And the creator of the universe says that the moon is one of the stars. So the stars are like our moon, they reflect the light of the sun, and in this universe their is only one sun.

        I know it is hard for you to accept but this is the truth. You can not imagine how mistaken the scientists are about two things. The scientists claim life comes from chemicals. That is a huge mistake. And there other huge mistake is their conception of the nature and workings of the universe. They have got it all totally wrong…

        Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

        Madhudvisa dasa

        • Steve says:

          Dear kind Madhudvisa dasa,

          Believe it or not, I understand precisely what you are saying. TO use our Saddam example, I only know what is told, by either the media, the governments, or…the people that were there. Or the people that SAID they were there? As far as stars, we invent these instruments that might just tell what we think we want to know, rather than what actually is.

          Correct?

          Well then…what about your OWN writings and teachings? You weren’t there. You don’t know The Krishna disappeared. You don’t KNOW there was any Kurukshetra War because you weren’t THERE.

          So why do you worship in this way? You do it because you have read the teachings and stories OTHER people wrote.

          How sad, pathetic and tiny beings we would be if we never listened to those that came before us, or those with other experiences than what we have. Somethings may come naturally, like a story about your father as told by your grandmother. Other stories, say, as told by a government about another government, take extreme caution, education, and wisdom. Which I admit humans are not generally good with. We make assumptions and preconceived notions, then act on them as fact.

          What I do is try to read and watch as many sources as possible. I might not believe my own government, but if someone from Iraq were to take photograph of a mass grave and tell their story, I may be more inclined. If MANY people from diverse backgrounds do it, I’m very likely to accept it. IF their WAS a Kurdish village at one time, and now there’s not…well I do indeed accept it, even though I did not walk on their decomposed bodies.

          Just like you accept the teachings and stories of those Vedic priests and sages that came before you.

          One of the most compelling arguments for the moon landing is that no one can disprove it, even though there would be VAST rewards for doing so.

          And, you talk about “not being there”, yet in many of YOUR arguments, you speak as if you know how a flag would move on the moon, or how light is reflected from surfaces.

          I am sorry, but I do not accept your logic “you weren’t there” because you do not use it yourself.

          • Hare Krishna Steve

            I am very happy that you can see that you simply depend on some authority for your knowledge of these things, like what happens in foreign countries and what supposedly happened on the moon. You agree that there is no way you can know if these things are true or not. You just accept what the authority you have selected says and believe that.

            But there is a big difference from some mundane authority like the US media or NASA and the Vedas. Firstly anything produced by man has four defects, because all men have four defects:

            • They have imperfect senses
            • They are illusioned (they accept something as a fact that is not a fact)
            • They make mistakes
            • They cheat

            So an ordinary man can not produce any knowledge that is perfect. Because our senses are not perfect we can not even perceive things as they actually are. And we are illusioned, believing so many mistaken and incorrect scientific theories, and we make mistakes and we are very attached to our ideas and theories and we will cheat by ignoring things that go against our theories and accepting things that support our theories. All science is contaminated by these four defects.

            However, on the other hand, the Vedic knowledge is ‘aparusa’, it is not man-made, it is delivered to us from Krishna. The Vedas was given first to Lord Brahma soon after the creation of the universe and Lord Brahma gave it to Narada Muni and in this way the same original Vedic knowledge has been passed down through the disciplic succession. So the Vedic knowledge is not subject to the four imperfections that man-made theories suffer from.

            You are correct in summarizing that the difference between your opinion and my opinion is that you accept different authorities than me. You accept the US media and NASA and I accept Srila Prabhupada and Krishna. But your equalization of your authorities [the US Media and NASA] and my authorities [Srila Prabhupada and Krishna] is not valid. Your authorities are subject to the four defects I have explained earlier but my authorities are free from these defects.

            Your authorities really do not know what they are talking about, that is the problem with NASA, they have a completely wrong concept of the universe, how it is situated and how it works, and that is really the proof they are not doing what they say they are doing. Otherwise they would not be in such darkness as to how the universe works.

            My authority, however, is ultimately Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead and He is all-knowing. He is the creator of the universe and He knows perfectly the structure and workings of the universe and He has revealed this knowledge in the Vedas.

            But ultimately it is a choice of which authority you accept, you accept the US Media and NASA and I accept Krishna. Actually Krishna is the correct authority and the US Media and NASA are completely faulty, completely compromised by the four defects I have already mentioned, and therefor unable to deliver any actual real valuable knowledge. On the other hand Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He knows everything, both material and spiritual, perfectly and is giving us the perfect knowledge about everything.

            Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

            Madhudvisa dasa

          • Steve says:

            So my friend, you have personally seen and spoken with the Krishna yourself? How do you know what the Krishna is?

          • Yes. By the mercy of Srila Prabhupada I have personally seen and spoken with Krishna myself.

      • Geoff says:

        You are so right regarding Saddam and also the other US assassinations of presidents they don’t like. Look at Libya. Is it better now. BP probably thinks so. Why is it the US left Mugabe alone? Maybe there was nothing to be gained. They threw Osama Bin Laden from the plane!! How ridiculous. We should not kid ourselves that the US is a kindly democratic country that wants to help the world. The US a group of self interested people who are mainly looking for ways to spread their doctrine and capitalist ventures; rather like the Brits years ago who now work with the US. It’s the system and we can’t knock it – Just go along, agree, accept the dole cheques, vote for the people you want in power and pretend that really makes a difference. Obama who?

        • Hare Krishna Geoff

          My point is not to criticize the US government. The reality is they are politicians and all politicians are like this. The point I was really making is that we have to accept some authority for our knowledge. So what we accept as knowledge is really only as reliable as the authority we accept. And I was suggesting that accepting the US press as one’s authority and source of knowledge on Saddam is not very good because the US press is a propaganda organization and they are not really interested in presenting the truth.

          So my point is that if we want real knowledge we have to find a perfect authority. Someone who can give us real knowledge that is actually correct. And Krishna is such a perfect authority and we can understand what Krishna is saying through the pure devotees of Krishna like His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

          Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

          Madhudvisa dasa

  18. Raevon Cross says:

    i dont understand how there is so much pressure outside the atmosphere and they are able to walk on the moon.

    • They say there is no atmosphere on the moon, no air, so no pressure, it is a vacuum, they say. So to survive on the moon their moon suits have to be pressurized, which means there is a big difference in the pressure in the suit and the vacuum outside the suit… But there is gravity, much less gravity than on the earth, because the moon is smaller than the earth, they say. So men on the moon should be much lighter than on the earth and should be able to jump very high. But on NASA’s moon walk pictures they can not jump very high. So something does not add up…

      But they do certainly do space walks at the space station and fix up broken things on the outside of the space station and that is more-or-less a vacuum and they do it in pressurized suits. So in theory walking on the moon would be the same thing with the addition of some gravity to keep them on the moon. So you can imagine how it might be possible but they should have been able to jump a lot higher than we see them jumping on the moon videos…

      • spookwaffe says:

        There is footage of a “moonwalk” where they claim to be jumping over 18 inches high but the view is obstructed because they are behind some piece of equipment; I know, I know… how convenient?
        Its almost as if they are bouncing on some kind of trampoline. One of them even loses his balance and falls off camera. It looks very awkward, far too awkward for 1/6th gravity.

        I think a good test would have been for them to throw a silver painted shingle; which would betray the presence of air.

  19. jgalt2000 says:

    The problem is, in 1969 it was far easier to actually land someone on the moon than to fake it. We didn’t have the capability in 1969 to fake it.

    • YOU ARE INSANE!!!

      We can’t even land someone on the moon and bring him home safely now, fifty years later, with technology light years ahead of what we had in the 60’s!!!!

      It is totally insane to say they had the technology to go to the moon and not the technology to fake going to the moon!

      Clearly they had everything they needed to fake going to the moon. And they had a whole department of people whose job it was to do exactly that. Fake going to the moon. That was the NASA Apolo Simulation department. All anyone would know about the supposed space-ship going to the moon was the data that came down the radio connection to the spaceship…. And that was a voice channel, a telementary channel which contained the readings of many, many instruments and sensors on the ship, and sometimes a video channel. So it was the business of the simulation department to create simulated moon missions. They would produce a datafeed that would exactly simulate an Apollo rocket traveling to the Moon. Except of course the datafeed would be transmitted from earth up to a sattelite between the earth and the moon which would retransmit the signal to exactly simulate the signal which would be transmitted by a spaceship if it was actually going to the moon.

      The reason NASA had these extensive simulation facilities was for training and testing but obviously no one knows if a simulation is running or if it is the real thing. So NASA had the technology to fake it. There is absolutely no doubt about this.

      What did they have to fake. The previously mentioned datafeed. Which is easy to fake and which they faked on a regular basis anyhow for training, etc. Moon photos, which have so many discrepancies even NASA more-or-less admits they are fakes. Plus some fussy television footage, very easy to fake. Plus the famous moon rocks which are also available on earth as it turns out so they do not need to fake them…

      So I can only think you are crazy or at least not thinking about what you are saying here.

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

      • spookwaffe says:

        I was 5 years old in July of 1969. I grew up believing the moon landings were true but as I got older, understood the nature of people, and with the advent of the internet allowing me to do my own research, I have come to the conclusion (and its a tragic one) that they were faked.

        As part of my investigation, I have intentionally avoided focusing on the same questions the “conspiracy theorists” ask and have instead tried to come up with other questions I have not seen raised before.

        Here is one of them:

        1. Why have we never seen any video/film of the Apollo astronauts inside the lunar module while it is sitting on the moon?

        Specifically, film or video with audio of them speaking inside the lunar module while it is sitting on the moon?

        Eating a sandwich?

        Shaving?

        Talking to the president…?
        Does this exist?

        My suspicion is its far more difficult to fake 1/6th gravity than “zero” gravity when inside a “container”

        2. Did they get an accurate total weight of all the moon rocks/dust before the they lifted off from the moon?

        If not how did they calculate the correct thrust and burn time to meet the command module without over shooting or under shooting it?

        You need the correct weight.

        I have more questions I have not seen raised before but I will ask them later.

        • spookwaffe says:

          Question:

          1. What are the health effects, if any, of a high oxygen low pressure atmosphere on the human body for extended periods of time?

          Based on my research, ALL of the Apollo flights from 11 to 17 used high oxygen low pressure cabin atmospheres ( 3.8 PSI). This was done to to allow for lighter, less robust command and lunar modules as well as more flexibility in the space suits.

          This is in contrast to Soviet and all later U.S manned space flights which used “sea level” oxygen percentages and pressures (14.7 PSI). Skylab, Mir, Soyuz, the Shuttle, the ISS… all use/d “sea level” pressures and oxygen levels for their cabin pressures.

          This is the reason why all space walks must be scheduled in advance; just like scuba divers, the astronauts must use decompression chambers to slowly adjust their bodies to/from their lower space suit pressures to the higher cabin pressures. This also sheds light of the Soyuz spherical cabin architecture.

          So the questions I have about the Apollo moon landings are,

          1. What if any are the health effects of living and working in a high oxygen low pressure atmosphere?

          2. At what point in the mission did the Apollo 11 astronauts transition from sea level pressure to high oxygen low pressure; was it on the launch pad? before they entered the capsule? At some point in orbit?

          3. Same pressure transition question for the landing

          4. Is the process of changing cabin pressures and oxygen contents difficult and or tricky? If not, why didn’t the Soviets adopt it on the Soyuz?

  20. kte says:

    I was 15 when I watched live on tv Neil Armstrong make his….as I now refer to..infamous step on the moon.

    I has researched for several years and I have concluded the Apollo missions were BULL SHIT.

    NO WAY we had 6 successful missions to the moon. It was all made up. I would love to challenge ANY one on the engineering aspects of this. I have loads of evidence that easily prove that the Apollo missions were nothing more than Hollywood productions.

    • Scott says:

      Okay…kte…why wouldn’t you just post your “evidence”? Are you going to make people beg for it?

      It seems to me…that there is ample “evidence” both ways. Usually the naysayers say things like “that can’t be…it’s impossible”. Which really isn’t any kind of “evidence”. When the hoax becomes more improbable than the actual event…I get concerned. a “production studio” would involve almost as many people (or more) than NASA facilities. You need technicians..and lots of them. You also have film footage and “outtakes” that aren’t part of the public footage. So where is it? Where are the people involved that could make A KILLING by blowing the whistle? Not just one crack pot there’d have to be dozens at least. Building the set, wiring the set, film crew, editing production…and then a crew to “feed” the stream live to NASA experts. Not just once…but 6 times? I could see once. Twice even. Not 6.
      And then you have professional and amateur astronomers than can easily track signals from space. They can tell a signal that comes from an orbiting satellite from one that comes from a path to the moon. Where are they? No one comes forward? Really? The fame and fortune from that would be irresistible.

      None of these people come forward? The body count is starting to really pile up heavy. Not one? Or not dozens?

      And yet…a simple rock. We know if a rock falls through the atmosphere. We know if one was gathered from the moon and brought back protected. With technology..we can assess all the properties involved. The fame and fortune of proving a moon rock to be fake would be irresistible. And yet…no one has come forward.

      In my mind…the SCIENTIFIC physical evidence rests with going to the moon. All naysayers have is anecdotal and hearsay. But I do await your top secret “evidence”. I’m even begging you for it just like you wanted.

      • Hare Krishna Scott

        You are just talking without knowing anything or understanding anything.

        Firstly while there may not be absolute proof they did not go to the moon there is certainly plenty of proof that the photos and videos they presented are full of inconsistencies and there is at least a lot of circumstantial evidence that makes having all these successful trips to the moon with 60’s technology which is totally stone-age compared with what we have today, and the fact that we are now unable to send men to the moon. So you have to understand that if we could send men to the moon so easily and had so many successful maned landings and successful return flights from the moon then we would still have the technology to do that and we would still be able to send men to the moon today. But we don’t. Today we have no technology to send anyone out of earth orbit. In fact since the NASA moon missions not even one human being has left earth orbit. All they do now is go to the space station a couple of hundred miles away. And even, as you know, those two hundred mile trips to the space station are not very safe and they have had big accidents killing everyone. But in the 60’s they had no problem with all these return trips to the moon. It is a quarter of a million miles each way. A round trip of half a million miles. And now we can not even imagine how that would be possible. The scientists say, “Maybe in 20 years we could go back to the moon if you give us ten trillion dollars…”

        So if you have any common sense at all you will see that it is highly unlikely that we ever sent men to the moon. Because if we did have the technology to do that in the 60’s then we would still have that technology today and it would have been developed and now travel to the moon and other planets would be relatively commonplace. But since the apollo missions, no man has ever even left earth orbit.

        Every aspect you investigate in regard to the “man on the moon” story is fishy. So when everything you look at does not add up then you have to question the reality of this.

        You know they went to the moon and landed on the moon and powered all their equipment, their life-support systems, the moon rover, everything, sometimes they stayed on the moon for days. And they had no power supply except for a few car batteries. There was no solar power in the 60’s. Solar panels were not yet invented… So where did the power come from? The moon is very hot on the bright side and very cold on the dark side, so they tell us. There is no atmosphere, they tell us. So to provide a livable environment for the astronauts would be a non-trivial problem. And to provide this proper atmosphere, both in the Luna Landing Module and in their space suits, would require a lot of power. But where did the power come from. If you ask them this they say “Batteries”. But batteries were also not very developed in the 60’s. None of the technology was very developed in the 60’s. You have no idea what it was like then… Really stone age compared to today. Yet they could broadcast live television from the moon, again with no apparent significant power source.

        No matter what aspect of the “man on the moon” story you look at it is full of unexplained mysteries and really totally impossible things. Like the luna lander comes down onto a loose sandy surface that holds clear footprints when the astronauts walk on it, but when the luna lander comes down with its engines blasting to slow it down it does not even disturb the dust underneath it at all. There is no indication in the sand under it that there was ever any blast from the engines. So you know there are thousands of inconsistencies like this.

        So it is very, very, very unlikely that we have ever sent men to the moon and brought them back home safely.

        This was a cold war stunt only, national security. The US was trying to show they were more advanced technologically than Russia. And the President had promised to do it and ordered NASA to do it and given them unlimited funding to do it. So they had to do it. There was no question of not going to the moon. Even if they could not go to the moon. So they faked it. That seems to be the only logical conclusion one can come to.

        As far as the ‘Moon Rocks’ they define them as being the same as the meteors they say fall from the moon. They are identical. They have the same qualities. The scientists have no way of telling if a rock is a moon rock or not. If NASA gives them a “Moon Rock” they just have to accept their word that it is a rock from the moon. The scientists can not say where the rocks come from. They just have to blindly believe NASA. It seems they were collected from Antarctica, or at least they were collected from somewhere on Earth. They may well have come from space. But the same rocks are available here on Earth and can be collected on earth.

        So our point is there is no proof that men ever went to the moon.

        The only ‘proof’ NASA has ever given is moon rocks which we have already established is not proof men went to the moon. Even if they do have rocks from the moon and just imagine they could go to the moon, they can be collected by unmanned missions as Russia claims to have done. Russia also has moon rocks but they never sent any men to the moon. So having moon rocks is no proof that men went to the moon.

        The only other “proof” is Lunar laser ranging. They say there are about four reflectors on the moon, some put there by NASA and some put there by Russia. So again, even if these reflectors are there, which is highly doubtful, Russia has also put them on the moon without putting men on the moon. So having reflectors on the moon does not prove that you have to have men on the moon to put them there.

        The visual record on film and video is so full of contractions and absurdities that it proves that at least a larger proportion of what they provided us with was not shot on the moon at all. And even NASA admit themselves that some of the images are not shot on the moon, some are publicity images, shot on the earth, mixed up with the ‘real’ moon shots. So if NASA will admit some of the images are fake that means they did have the moon studio and the moon landscape on earth. That is of course known. There are even photos. They had everything simulated on earth, for training, you know.

        It is not that they just went to the moon. They simulated everything on Earth first for training. So obviously they took photos and films of the simulations and no would think anything of this.

        In fact NASA had a whole simulation department who would simulate realistic data streams for the Mission Control so they could practice without actually having to send men to the moon.

        And you really overestimate what amateur radio people can do. All they can do is point an antenna in the direction of the moon and try to pick up a signal. That signal could be broadcast from any point between the earth and the moon. They can not tell the distance, only they can roughly work out what direction it is coming from. So all NASA have to do is have a satellite that is organized so that it is always directly in the line between the earth and the moon. So the satellite orbits the earth in the same way the moon is orbiting the earth and remains between the earth and the moon. So they just have to send their data stream up to that satellite and have it transmit it and then no one can tell if it is coming from the moon or coming from the earth. And they did actually have this satellite. And the reason was so they could run realistic simulations for training purposes.

        So you see they already had everything in place they needed to fake the moon missions and there was no secret. This was all for training and simulations. And there is no way that mission control could tell if they were running a simulation or if there was actually a space ship traveling to the moon. They only have the data feed that comes down into their equipment. They have no idea if that is coming from simulation or if it is really coming from an actual ship out there on the way to the moon.

        So if you actually investigate these things you will see there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that man has ever walked on the moon and there is huge amount of proof that puts the official story into question and which would indicate that the whole ‘man on the moon’ story is untrue.

        Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

        Madhudvisa dasa

      • jagat candra das says:

        @Scott
        The CIA & other organizations involve hundreds of people who are sworn to secrecy. That is not an issue given the large number of patriots the US has. But Science is about collective verification by anyone who cares to do so. But when u have an event this remote, it becomes very expensive, far beyond even what several countries can afford, let alone an individual. So this then rests only on faith.

        You can at best trust they landed. Or trust they did not. There are no witnesses other than those who claim to have done it & stones & snaps are not reliable evidence of a landing. In other words evidences for or against cannot be produced.

        Circumstantial evidences are the next best exhibits. And in that realm those who doubt it have an abundance of it.

  21. Jason says:

    I came to the conclusion that we have never gone to the moon.

  22. Jason says:

    The area 51 could be a studio

  23. Jason says:

    i think we didn’t go to the moon because with the computers we have today it is again difficult and think back then the computers didn’t even have the one tenth of yours computer

    • madhudvisa says:

      NASA’s computers in the 60s were no where near 1/10th of your iPhone. Your iPhone is thousands and thousands and thousands of times more powerful than all the computers NASA had in the 1960’s….

      • Harry says:

        I was around in the 60’s and the cars then, didn’t always start first time. We used to have to crank the engine with a rod some days to get it going. In fact a motor mechanic from the AA (Automobile Association, UK) who do road rescues. Told me that it wasn’t until about 1985 that we had reliability regarding starting such engines (Seems the Japanese had this reliability some years earlier). I took his word as gospel, cos that was his daily job. So from a mechanical point of view, it is difficult to believe all the complex mechanical arrangements required for a moon flight happened, without any problems.

  24. chris lindsay says:

    The moon lauch was real, are you all nuts I watched it the flag was not fluttering from wind, there was a pole and another pole like an upside done L ,so that the flag could be seen other wise the flag would have fell and you couldnt see it. This was talked about during the landing, Do you really think taht we cant go to space, what about ISS maybe thats not there eathier. yet I see it all the time…

    • Chris it is obvious that we are able to launch satellites that orbit the earth. We use GPS and satellite communications all the time. There is absolute proof we have satellites and we can use them. As you say the ISS is visible from earth, it is only a couple of hundred miles up for God’s sake! The moon is a quarter of a million miles away! There is a huge difference between putting the ISS two hundred miles up above the earth and sending men to the moon and bringing them home safely. There is absolutely no proof we have ever sent men to the moon and you can not produce any proof at all for this. And all the indications are that we did not send men to the moon. You believe it only because you have blind religious faith in NASA. Because of this blind religious faith you are unable to think logically.

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

      • Steve says:

        We do have proof though. We’ve brought back physical evidence. The rocks have been examined by scientists that WANT to prove they are fake. And yet they admit they are from the moon.

        This is your CHOICE to discount it- to say it isn’t evidence. But that doesn’t make them fake. People smarter than you say they are real. People that are like you- that WANT it to be fake- say they are real. “Like you” but smarter.

        • Steve even the scientists admit that ‘moon rocks’ fall out of the sky as meteorites. The ‘moon rocks’ can be collected on Earth… How thick are you? Why don’t you do some reasearch instead of repeating all these stupid things that have been disproved time and time and time again. It is simply sentimental blind religious faith on your part. You want to believe NASA. You love NASA, you have faith in NASA. But there is no evidence that NASA sent men to the moon at all…

          We have established time and time and time again completely conclusively that having moon rocks does not mean that you have sent men to the moon and brought them home safely with the rocks. The Russians also have ‘moon rocks’ but they never sent anyone to the moon to collect them. It is absolutely not necessary to go to the moon to get ‘moon rocks’. They fall out of the sky on earth, and Russia claims to have sent an unmanned probe and got the samples back to earth somehow with that. So even if they went to the moon and got moon rocks that does not prove that men went and came back. They have remote control Steve. They have unmanned missions. I am not saying of course they did this. But you can see that haveing moon rocks we sent men to the moon and brought them home. If you can not comprehend this you are insane, with all due respects…

          Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

          Madhudvisa dasa

  25. sepan says:

    why is there no stars

    • steve says:

      sepan…of all the “Arguments” for a conspiracy- your question is one of the easiest to explain. Many of the phenomena we observe and measure on the moon is not observable here on Earth, so it’s difficult for our brain to process. What does a vacuum look like? What is 1/6 gravity? How does extremely fine powder as “the ground” work? Most of us try to use our experience eon Earth to explain, or rather discount, anything we see in video.
      I’ve actually seen a photo with a star visible, but the reason more stars aren’t visible is simple photography. The surface of the Moon is very bright (and also at times very dark). The exposure time obliterates the stars. This is actually a phenomenon we experience here on Earth. Ever take a picture of the stars in your backyard? I’ve tried…and even on very long exposure times I can only grab a couple of the very brightest stars.

  26. Suresh says:

    People believing that man did actually go to moon should ask themselves a simple and basic question, Is it really possible to go to moon? They’ll find their answer.

  27. Steve says:

    Hello Madhudvisa dasa. I have pretty much given up on you with this topic, but I certainly enjoy the regular email messages being sent. Thanks. However, your logic does still baffle me. You say things like “filmed on movie sets”. You must be very uneducated/ignorant about the film industry process. Even a simple low budget film can require dozens of personnel just to film, let alone set design, set construction, script writing, pre and post production. “dummy satellite”, would require many engineers to build program it. Ever been to the Kennedy Space Center? How about The Johnson Space Center? These aren’t little rooms with a few people. These are MASSIVE complexes where even a simple operation of an unmanned satellite can take hundreds of people. The complexes are filled with VERY smart people. Can’t fool them all.
    Also, the globe Earth is FILLED with expert amateur and professional scientists and telescope and radio operators. They love tracking objects in space. They would be rich and famous if they proved the moon missions were faked, yet, somehow, the thousands upon thousands of people, not one ever did? Same with the rocks you keep saying can be faked. It takes a VERY ignorant person to think you can fake micrometeor impacts and subatomic particle construction. Scientists would LOVE to prove those rocks are faked…and yet none have?
    And as I said before….they faked this not once or twice…but SIX TIMES? Six MASSIVE operations that nobody has come forward about being a part of faking it? Your flawed logic REALLY fails when you express your opinion about humanity being flawed and even evil- yet somehow….no one has been motivated by The Dark Side enough to expose your fake theory? No way in Heaven, Hell and Earth that NO ONE has come forward out of the THOUSANDS of people it would have taken to fake it all.

    As I said before…your conspiracy theory is more preposterous and unbelievable than the actual events. You’ve got your own mind tricked into believing it. But it’s not your fault. Your lack of education and knowledge on the subject, and your spiritual directive won’t allow it to be any other way.

    peace brother

    • Hare Krishna Steve

      You do not understand and you did not read what I wrote. So please read it again.

      All these things were there and are admitted and the thousands of people did know about it and did participate in it. The stage sets, the models of the moon, the reconstruction of the moon’s surface in some desert in the USA, these things are all real and all known about by thousands of people. The satellite is a fact and is know about by thousands of people. But these things are all plausibly explained as being needed for the purpose of training the astronauts and for the purpose of training and testing the mission control facilities and equipment and personal. So none of the elements that would be need to fake the moon missions are secret or hidden or unknown. They were all there, but their purpose was explained as for training, testing, etc.

      The mission control was constantly running these simulations with the data-feed coming in from their satellite. And they had a whole group of hundreds or even thousands of workers who would produce and manage these simulated data-feeds. This is how they trained the mission control people and tested their equipment. Obviously even if they really went to the moon they would need a way of simulating the transmissions from the space craft on the way to the moon without having to actually send a spacecraft to the moon.

      So my point is absolutely everything was in place for them to fake it.

      And you know that NASA openly admit that some of the photos are PR photos that got mixed in with the ‘real’ photos. So if they have PR photos that were not taken on the moon then they obviously have a moon set where they took the PR photos? And there are pictures of their big and small models of the moon with the camera tracks there so they can take the films of approaching the moon, etc.

      You have to admit Steve that there is a real possibility that we did not have the technology to send men to the moon in 1967. You have to realize Steve that we don’t have the technology to send men to the moon now in 2013, almost fifty years later. In fifty years our technology has advanced astronomically. But still we have no technology to send men to the moon. You have to try and engage your brain here and think seriously about these things.

      And you have to consider the political situation with the cold war with Russia, with Russia being considerably ahead of the US in the field of ‘rocket science’, and the fact that the President of the United States had promised the country that “we will go to the moon…” And you have to consider that NASA’s funding, NASA’s very existence, and the funding and existence of so many of the contractors working for NASA was completely dependent on going to the moon. There was no question of not going to the moon. So with this in mind if they discovered that it was not actually possible to go to the moon with 1960’s technology then faking it was their only option.

      You have to consider this as a possibility at least. Of course you may think it is more likely that they went to the moon, that is fine, but I think it is more likely they faked it. And you can not say they did not fake it.

      As I have repeatedly pointed out there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that man has ever walked on the moon. And I have asked you Steve also to give me some actual proof of your claim that NASA sent men to the moon, they hung out on the moon for a few days without any power to power their equipment including life support systems, television cameras and transmitters capable of sending live television broadcasts back to earth, that great little moon-buggy zipping around on the moon, it was all running on batteries. And sometimes these batteries lasted for days while they hung out on the moon playing golf and so on…

      You know in the 60’s they had no solar panels. Only batteries… And the 60’s batteries were not very good also…

      So anyhow Steve, unless you are a total fool, you have to accept the possibility that NASA faked the moon missions. You can not prove that they didn’t fake it. You only believe in NASA because you have blind faith in NASA. This is the mood of a blind religious fanatic. Only your religion is NASA.

      My position is that I have heard from Srila Prabhupada that it is his opinion that they did not go to the moon. So I accept the opinion of Srila Prabhupada, therefore my opinion is the same, I do not believe they went to the moon. We have ample evidence from the Vedas that supports the thesis that it is not possible to go to the moon in the way it was presented that the NASA astronauts went to the moon, and we also have evidence from the Vedas stating that the moon is different from the way it was portrayed by NASA in their live television coverage, etc. And in addition to this, almost fifty years later, NASA has not been able to convince a very large percentage of the people that they went to the moon. Maybe now 40% of people in the US do not believe men ever walked on the moon. And NASA can do nothing to convince this 40% of the American population that they went to the moon. And NASA can’t go to the moon now. And even if they were funded with trillions of dollars they can only say that “Perhaps, maybe, in twenty years or so we might be able to go back to the moon…” This is insane. If they could go to the moon in the 1960’s they know how to do it and they can go to the moon today. Now they can build spaceships so much better than in the 1960’s because the technology is now so much better. But they can’t. So if they can’t go to the moon now they didn’t go to the moon in the 1960’s.

      Steve you are illogical and simply a sentimental fanatic believing in a fantasy that you want to believing and you refuse to use any logic or intelligence to actually analyze what you believe in. You can not blindly believe in things with no proof just because NASA tells you so. That is not science. That is sentimentalism.

      So come up with some actual solid proof that NASA sent men to the moon or at least accept the possibility they may have faked it. OK you can have your opinion that NASA sent men to the moon, and you can believe that, fine. But you have to admit that is your belief and that is the conclusion you have come to from your study of the available information. Still at the same time you can not say it is a fact. It is only your opinion and you have to admit the possibility that you may be wrong.

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

      • Steve says:

        The “proof” is there. You refuse to believe it. Why? The rocks have been examined by THOUSANDS of scientists around the world. None of them found them to be fake. But because you THINK they can be faked….I should believe you? You who are not a scientist and have not examined the rocks? And you wonder why I do not blindly follow you?
        As far as we don’t have the technology at this moment in time is true. But you aren’t telling the whole truth about that. It’s not that we CAN’T…it’s because the government and general public defunded the technology. NASA could only run the space shuttle program with the funds available, which was very intense all by itself. They felt we needed a space station instead of being on the moon. For someone seeking knowledge and wisdom, you certainly are not going very deep for it. You stop asking questions when the answer satisfies your disposition….not when the whole entire truth is uncovered.

        Sure…a lot of kooks think we didn’t go. I’m not talking about them. These are the same people who know more about Survivor and The Kardashians then they do about our U.S. Constitution or Noam Chomsky. I’m talking about the scientists, the engineers…even the ASTRONAUTS themselves…could certainly find the motivation, the vast rewards from people like you…to come forward. No disgruntled NASA personnel? Really? NOBODY? If people are as bad as YOU say they are…certainly someone of importance would have come forward.

        NASA had planned a return trip to the moon via The Constellation Project. Once again…this pesky budget thing rears it’s head. This problem is more important that you realize. Projects get SCRUBBED because of it…not because we do not have the capability. NASA can only do so much with the money left to them. Instead, NASA set it’s sights even further. The Orion project is in full swing and set for a manned mission to Mars around 2020. As was asked of you earlier…I do indeed wonder what your reaction will be if that is successful. Do you even wish it to be? I suspect that you hope for failure.

        • Hare Krishna Steve

          Good to hear from you. If NASA are successful in sending men to the Moon or to Mars that is fine. That will be wonderful for them I am sure. So if they are successful I will congratulate them of course. Successful means they will be able to go and come as they please and others will be able to go and come and they will be able to do things there. So if these things are going on then that becomes proof. You know we can not say that the scientific advances which have actually been made have not been made because there is proof. We can not say that they are not able to put satellites in the sky because we use the satelites every day for GPS and communications. Every actual real scientific advancement is like this. There is proof of it and because of the proof no one can doubt it.

          As far as your links to the “moon hoax debunking” websites I am not going to post them. When you get people who for some reason other than a genuine desire to understand the truth who are pushing an agenda for that purpose they may be able to present many arguments for their cause but they are only interested in establishing their cause. They are not interested in finding out the truth. These people want to prove at all costs that NASA went to the moon and they do not consider the very likely scenario that the moon missions were faked.

          I am only interested in finding out the truth about this and really it does not matter if they went to the moon or not. We don’t care. We will continue chanting Hare Krishna anyhow.

          We are not saying that interplanetary travel is impossible. There are at least three different types of spacecraft described in the Vedas and interplanetary travel is going on even now by beings from other planets, both demonic and divine. The demons tend to be the ones who are very advanced in technology and have the best mechanical spacecraft while the devotees like Narada Muni, who is a transcendental spaceman, can travel from planet to planet simply by playing on his stringed instrument, the vina. So there are many ways by which interplanetary travel is possible, both mechanical and also on a more subtle platform. But we do not believe that the way NASA did it is a valid way to travel to the moon.

          As far as the moon rocks they are not proof at all because what they call ‘moon rocks’ are exactly the same as the ‘moon rocks’ that fall out of the sky as meteorites. Not all meteorites are ‘moon rocks’ but some of them they say are ‘moon rocks’. So these ‘moon rocks’ are coming from somewhere other than earth but we don’t have to go anywhere to get them. They fall out of the sky. And you know the Russians also have ‘moon rocks’ but they have never been to to moon. So this ‘moon rocks’ is absolutely not proof that man has walked on the moon. And you know that very well, yet still you keep bringing up moon rocks?

          As far as your assertion that amateur astronomers would have been able to track the Apollo astronauts. That is also nonsense. They are using telescopes and the Apollo spacecraft are very small, particularly after they drop off that big booster rocket, so once it disappears in the sky they can see it with a telescope for a little while but very soon it disappears from the telescope also and they can not see it or track it or anything. As far as the radio transmissions there is no way to know the distance from where they are being transmitted. Only a ham radio operator can determine the approximate direction by pointing his antenna and moving it around and finding where the signal is the strongest. But you know NASA had a satellite between the earth and the moon moving around the earth just like they say the moon is moving around the earth. So they have organized something in the same line and direction as the moon is from the earth where they can transmit their simulated Apollo data from. And this is not secret. This is the system they used for training and for simulations and for testing their equipment.

          As far as your assertion that thousands of people would have to know about the hoax, that is also wrong, as I have pointed out all the elements necessary to fake the moon missions were already in place and were already accepted and know of by many in NASA but they had valid reasons for having everything. They presented valid reasons for creating a section of the moon’s landscape in a desert, for having the simulation satellite, and for taking these fake PR photos in a studio on Earth. Of course the astronauts must know about it. But this is considered to be an issue of national security as it was part of the cold war with Russia really so all these people take serious secrecy oaths and the US government can be quite nasty with those who may break these oaths.

          And it is not that people have not spoken out. Many have actually spoken out. I happened to hear Alex Jones interview one of the leading people who was working in the Houston ground control center on both the Apollo missions and later on the Space Shuttle missions. And he is right there in mission control and a very key person there and he says while he thinks they probably went to the moon but he is not sure, he has doubts. He described the simulation system NASA was using. He said there were also rooms of hundreds of people who were the ‘simulation department’. And the simulation department was constantly feeding simulations into mission control even during the actual moon landings. It was this ‘simulation department’ who was tasked with the job of writing the scripts and actually executing these simulations for training the mission control personal and for exploring various scenarios which may occur. And he said there was no way they could tell in mission control if they were running a simulation or if it was the real thing.

          You see all the impressive instruments and all the big screens, etc, but in reality all the data they are working on is just coming through one data feed and it is an old fashioned analog feed which is just an audio channel and a telemetry channel containing the current readings from the hundreds of sensors they had on all the various systems on the spacecraft. In addition they occasionally had a video feed from the television camera. So you only have these three signals. And they had rooms full of hundreds of people who’s job was to produce fake simulations of these three data feeds for training purposes. So you see everything was in place to fake it and very few of the people involved would be aware of what was happening. They could very easily have the simulation people running a simulation and have the mission control people think that the simulation was real. Of course there would be a small number of people who would be aware of what was actually going on. But it is a very small number of people.

          As far as your idea that everyone would want to disprove it, that was not the mood in the sixties. The mood has changed. Now of course if NASA did fake a moon landing it would be immediately exposed but in the sixties the mood was different. People had a lot more faith in science and were not generally aware of the extent to which a government would be prepared to mislead their people for their own agendas. And your idea that scientists would want to prove that NASA was wrong is also not valid. That is not the way the scientific community works. They have faith in these things, they believe what NASA says. And how is any scientist going to prove what is a moon rock and what is not? They have no idea what a moon rock is. They have never been to the moon. So they have no way of saying if a rock is a moon rock or not. All they can do is just analyze the “moon rocks” that NASA gives them…

          As far as the funding, in really very little funding is required if the technology is already developed. There is a very big difference in the funding required to actually develop the technology as compared to simply fabricating something according to technology that we already have. All you have to do is build it and that is not really very expensive. And you forget that George Bush was offering NASA the funding, and he would have given them practically anything at all, if they could have just gone back to the moon in his presidency. This is the key. These US presidents have to get the glory and see them reaching the Moon within their presidency. That is why the Apollo program had to be successful before the president of the time was out of office. So George Bush offered to fund NASA to return to the moon. He wanted to do it. Many have wanted to do it over the years. But NASA came back and wanted insane amounts of money and said it would not be possible for at least 20 years and even then they could not say for sure if they would be able to do it or not. So this funding is also not an issue.

          So unless NASA can do something within two US presidential terms then they are not going to get funding for it.

          The ideas that you put forward are all flawed. Like the moon rocks ‘proof’. Having ‘moon rocks’ is no proof of having gone to the moon because these ‘moon rocks’ also sometimes fall out of the sky and are available to be collected right here on Earth. And of course the Russians also have ‘moon rocks’ but have never been to the moon.

          So as I have said many times, it is OK, you can have your opinion that you think NASA sent men to the moon, and that is your opinion based on your analysis of the information you have at your disposal. But you can not say this is anything more than your opinion. And you can not deny the very real possibility that NASA may have faked the moon missions as there is a lot of actual evidence pointing towards this conclusion and there is no actual evidence at all that men have ever walked on the moon.

          If they do go to the moon actually then we have the technology to go to the moon and that will be developed and many will go to the moon and do things there and develop things there that we can see through telescopes. That is the proof. And if that happens of course we will have proof they can go to the moon. And if there is actual proof that we can go to the moon then no one can deny that. But while there is no proof you can not expect people to believe in NASA’s “men on the moon” story…

          Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

          Madhudvisa dasa

        • Joseph NR says:

          How can rocks from moon be proof even if thousands of scientists have examined it? No one is familiar with moon rocks to say “yep! These are genuine 24 carat moon rocks!!” . In fact the whole story from NASA can only be taken at face value when they say we went somewhere, did this & that since there is no other witness to it nor is there any way to prove or disprove it. One can only choose believe or not believe it. Period.

          All your claims that they moon landings were true can also be claimed by anyone who says – ” I tele-ported to Mars yesterday & brought this rock as proof. Here it is ” & shows you a rock he picked up from his back yard & adds ” Boy ! dont they look exactly like rocks from Earth?”. Every claim that NASA uses to authenticate its moon mission can be used by this man too!

          Only , we will tend to believe NASA more because it is a big organisation & we have been trained in schools from the tender age of 4 to be submissive to to any form of authority. That’s all ! – There can be no proof , at least not ‘scientific’ proof in any way. This situation is not sufficiently within a domain that can allow it be to proven or disproved. It is just another claim at best ! Nothing more.

  28. kc sampada says:

    if its all true than will no one ever land in moon ?

    if Armstrong hadn’t stepped in the moon how can they manage all the things ? had they took the needed things before?

    you just can’t disprove them.

    if the rocket can’t cross the later than why did the scientist send them though they knew that. did they want to kill the astronomer by sending them ?????

    • Hare Krishna

      Yes. They can obviously film all these things in the deserts of America and in studios and they can play the films and videos and put that into the television feed. That is not ‘rocket science’ and that is much easier than actually going to the Moon…

      It is obvious that the Apollo rockets took off and went up into the sky, and it seems fairly obvious that the astronauts were on them. But where they went after they disappeared from our view no one can really say. The most common suspicion is that the astronauts simply went into earth orbit, circling the earth just a few hundred miles up, that would give them the weightlessness and the appearance of traveling in space. And when it was time they could just come back again. Or who knows really? But certainly they had the technology to fake it and it does appear very, very unlikely that any man has ever actually gone to the moon and walked on it…

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  29. Gao says:

    MOON LANDINGS CONSPIRACY: A BLEAK VIEW ON HUMANITY’S INTENTIONS

    Your suggestion that the US government, US industry, universities, and thousands of scientists, engineers, project managers, etc, working on the Apollo missions all conspired together to fabricate an enormous lie, and to betray the human race by such fundamental dishonesty and deceitfulness, indicates that you hold a very bleak view of the nature of humanity. The cynical views you express paint a dark and grim picture regarding the higher intentions of the human race.

    I would suggest that you need to refresh your faith in the inner goodness of man, and refresh your faith in the inherent earnestness of mankind’s intentions.

    Once you start to view humanity as fundamentally good and virtuous, you will understand that the very idea of such a deception would be anathema to the human spirit.

    IN SHORT: those who are cynical about the Apollo lands hold those views probably because they are cynical about the higher intentions of humanity in general. Moon landings conspiracy theorists would appear to hold a bleak view on humanity’s higher intentions.

    So the deeper issues here are not really anything to do with Moon landings, but are more about why some individuals harbour such cynicism of soul that they take a dark and cynical view of humanity’s intentions. Such individuals need to reconnect to goodness.

    • Hare Krishna Gao.

      You are completely mistaken here. I have never suggested, and no one has ever suggested that “the US government, US industry, universities, and thousands of scientists, engineers, project managers, etc, working on the Apollo missions all conspired together to fabricate an enormous lie, and to betray the human race by such fundamental dishonesty and deceitfulness.” You have not understood the fundamental point. All these people were certainly, at least 99.9% of them, completely unaware of the moon hoax. They were almost all sincerely working to put men on the moon and they almost all believed that was what was actually happening.

      Almost no one needs to know about the moon hoax. Everything was already established to stage the moon hoax and everyone know that. For ‘training’ they built a reproduction of the moon in a desert somewhere in America and they openly have the big and small models of the moon and the camera tracks required to film the approaches to the moon, etc, etc. And not only that, for the purposes of training and testing, they had a satellite lined up between the earth and the moon and they had simulation data. They could simply broadcast a data stream to their satellite and that satellite would then broadcast all the data back to earth. Just exactly like it would be if there was actually a spaceship traveling to the moon… And this simulation system is open and know about by everyone. And they all accept it as part of the training without and suspicion.

      So with the exception of the Astronauts themselves and a handful of people who could just turn on that simulation satellite and send a data feed to it, no one else in NASA could tell if the data that was coming into all their instruments was originating from the satellite or from a space ship on its way to the moon…

      So you are completely wrong. Absolutely no one thinks: “the US government, US industry, universities, and thousands of scientists, engineers, project managers, etc, working on the Apollo missions all conspired together to fabricate an enormous lie, and to betray the human race by such fundamental dishonesty and deceitfulness.”

      Also you are completely wrong about human nature. Every person has four defects. Everyone has the tendency to cheat, everyone makes mistakes, everyone is illusioned–they accept things to be true that are actually false, and everyone has imperfect senses–they can not actually see what is really happening with their senses…

      There are two types of people: the divine and the demonic. So you are talking about the divine ones. And of course there are still a few, but these days, in Kali-yuga, although not everyone is demonic, the demons are in power and their influence is very, very strong. So the majority of humanity at present, under this demonic influence, are in fact demonic and it is realistic to have a cynical view of their intentions.

      So I think you need to reconnect to reality and understand that there is a very strong demonic force at present and to view humanity as fundamentally “good and virtuous” at this point in history would be very naive.

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  30. Les Paul says:

    If you are able to view the lunar modules and other equipment, NASA claims they left behind, from a very powerful telescope from Earth, would you consider that as irrefutable evidence or would you question that as well?

    The more interesting question to ask is – There will be one day in future where common man would be able to play a part in such missions, whether it is viewing from Earth using simple instruments (that cannot be manipulated) like a telescope or whether it is actually being on the ship. In any case, if that happens, it will shake the roots of the founding principles of your organization, wouldn’t it? What then?

    If one of your founding principles is proved wrong, then that will cascade down to many other principles and suddenly you’ll realize that they weren’t “perfect”. I think you guys should start preparing for this eventuality because thousands of people will be left disillusioned not knowing what to do next.

    Les

    • Hare Krishna Les Paul

      That is exactly what I have been challenging NASA to do. Do something on the moon that we can see with a reasonably powerful telescope and then there would be no question that they can go to the moon. If we can see something they have done on the moon it would mean of course they could at least do something on the moon. It does not necessarily mean men on the moon as things can be done with unmanned missions. This is not a ‘founding principle’ of Krishna consciousness. Rather Prabhupada has given us ‘Easy Journey to Other Planets’ that outlines a simple process anyone can use to travel to any planet including the moon. So men can travel to the moon. It is just that NASA do not know how to do it.

      It has been almost 50 years and so far NASA has not been able to produce any evidence at all that they actually sent men to the moon so I do not think we have to worry about that and as far as men going to the moon in the future using NASA’s method that is practically impossible. So let us wait and see. But certainly that is what we should demand. If they do send men to the moon they should do something that is clearly visible from Earth that someone with a reasonably powerful telescope can see. It is my suggestion for almost 20 years that they should do something like this so I very much appreciate you suggesting it also.

      That would at least prove they could send an unmanned craft to the moon and do something there. Even if they could do this without sending men to the moon that would be impressive. Even if they can just send an unmanned craft to the moon and do something that is visible from earth on the moon. You know they are very good at explosives, they should easily be able to blow something up there on the moon which would provide a great fireworks display we could all see from earth and the big bits of the creator wall that are blown out we could all look at through our telescopes and see it. Of course I am sure there are many other less destructive things one could do on the moon that could be seen from the earth. And that would prove at least that the can send unmanned craft to the moon. But I don’t think you will see this. That is of course a very inexpensive thing for them to do. Maybe 100 million dollars only if you get India or China to do it, maybe a billion dollars if NASA does it. It is nothing for NASA who are talking about projects costing trillions of dollars…

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  31. Steve says:

    Hi Andrew…

    regarding your comment that we never went back; we went there 6 times over a three year period. Well, that is what NASA claims. We brought back some rocks. Well, that is what NASA claims. What else would you expect NASA to do? Moon bases? For what? Almost all of us agree it’s a very dangerous environment. You think it’s too dangerous for ONE trip….let alone living there.

    Is it possible that NASA (and the politicians) felt there wasn’t really any more to accomplish at that point in time? Could it be that NASA turned it sights on the Space Station? That was what the shuttle were designed for. It’s like you have no comprehension of mission goals and the resources it takes. NASA absolutely could not do a space station and the moon missions together.

    Your assertion is “proof” of nothing. Some of you people need to reassess your definitions of “proof” and “evidence”.

    • Steve if it was possible to go to the moon six times within a three year period, safely sending six groups of men to the moon and safely bringing them home then we have got the technology for traveling from the earth to the moon very well developed and we have ironed out all the bugs. And the moon did not seem to be a very dangerous place at all as we see it on the NASA footage. Only no air to breathe. Otherwise it looks like a really fun and harmless place to be. How that could be so is a bit strange when we look at the ‘moon rocks’ that have been severely pelted with all these micrometeorite impacts is a little strange. Why weren’t the astronauts also pelted with micrometeorites, ripping their suits up?

      No, we don’t see anything hostile on the NASA videos, just a bunch of astornuts fooling around playing golf, etc…

      The proof that we did not go to the moon six times very successfully without any incident except Apollo 13 is that if we did we would have had to develop very reliable technology to go to the moon and bring the astronuts home and we would have that technology now and would have developed it and now interplanetary travel would be quite common. The money to develop this technology is already spent Steve. It was supposed to be developed with the billions of dollars spent on the Apollo program. So going back to the moon does not require any spending to develop the technology to go to the moon. We are supposed to have that already. All we have to do is just build the spaceship and go. But we can’t. That is the absolute proof that we did not go to the moon in the 60’s. That we can not go to the moon now…

      You have still not given us one single piece of evidence that we ever had men walking on the moon Steve…

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  32. vasudama says:

    Madhudvisa prabhu,

    On many occasions Srila Prabhupada stated that they did not land on the moon and the audio recordings confirm this – they are not a red herring.

    Here is the Apollo 14 golf swing – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-FxhCZold0

    Note carefully at 1:04, the astronaut is moving and carrying on a conversation at the same time. Houston responds in less than a second to the astronauts dialogue and the movement of the astronaut is completely fluid which would indicate that no editing has been done to this clip. A three second edit would be quite obvious. I am not a technical expert but if you kept editing only the audio (if that is at all possible with these old recordings) then the picture would very quickly go out of sync over the course of a conversation.

    Hare Krsna.

    • Hare Krishna Vasudama Prabhu

      Actually Prabhu there is no problem with this video, it could have been recorded on the Moon, as the talking is being done by the astronaut only except for the two cases where Houston replies to him but as I will explain below Houston can reply instantly and in sync with what we see happening on the moon because what we see happening on the moon on the video is recorded on earth and already includes the delay from the moon. But the astronauts can not hear what Houston says until 1.5 seconds after they speak and Houston can not hear the astronauts reply until 1.5 seconds after they speak.

      So what I am saying is I am not yet convinced that NASA was so foolish not to include the delay in their audio and video recordings but if you can research and prove that in the official NASA audio and video conversations between the astronauts on the moon and ground control there is not at least a 3 second delay then that is 100% proof that they were not on the moon. I am not saying this is a ‘red hearing’ I just said that I do not personally have the proof that this is the case. But if you can research it and prove it then certainly that is 100% proof that the astronauts were not on the moon when talking with the ground control people. So it is absolute proof if you can show this from the original NASA recordings.

      Of course the Houston people will hear the astronauts in half this delay time. So in maybe a little less than 1.5 seconds after the astronauts speak Houston will hear it and will be able to reply to that but their reply will not reach the astronauts for another 1.5 seconds or so. You have to check the exact timing because this 3 seconds and 1.5 seconds is just my rough guess.

      So it would be possible on a video recorded from Earth that Houston can respond to the astronauts about 1.5 seconds after they speak but the astronauts would not be able to hear this until about 1.5 seconds after they replied.

      So if the video is recorded on earth off the life feed from the moon, then you are seeing it with the moon to earth delay in it already. So you are seeing it already 1.5 seconds after the astronauts spoke. So on the video as recorded from earth, which is already delayed 1.5 seconds, Houston will appear to be able to immediately respond to the astronauts questions, but because the video and audio from the moon is actually delayed by 1.5 seconds already, that 1.5 seconds has already passed on the moon and NASA are just now replying, which appears to be an immediate reply on the video, but it is already 1.5 seconds after the astronauts have asked the question and the reply to the question is going to take another 1.5 seconds to get to the moon so the astronauts on the moon have to wait 3 seconds before they can receive a reply to their questions. And if Houston asks the astronauts a question then they have to wait 3 seconds before they can get a reply from the astronauts on the moon…

      But Houston can immediately reply to a message as they receive it from the moon. But it is impossible for them to get any reply back from the astronauts until three seconds later.

      So it is impossible to have a fluid conversation with astronauts on the moon. Because they are not going to hear you till 1.5 seconds after you speak and then when they reply you can not hear them till 1.5 seconds after they speak. So if this 3 second delay is not there in the official NASA audio and video recordings then that is 100% proof that the astronauts were not on the moon…

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

      Chant Hare Krihsna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  33. Steve says:

    I also did want to say that the audio waveform you see there is NOT proof that the transmission did not originate from the moon. You have no way to check the transmission speed on a recording.

    If you want to submit evidence that those transmissions from the moon did not take the 3 seconds…that’s fine…but you can’t do it from a recording. Please…submit the real evidence that the transmissions from the astronauts were not from the moon. I’m willing to listen- IF you can do it.

    • Hare Krishna Steve

      I do agree with you on this. There must be a 3 second at least delay but in these days of digital editing someone may well have edited that delay out to make the recordings easier to listen to. So you are right, this issue needs more research. But certainly if there are actual real unedited NASA recordings with ground control speaking to astronauts on the moon that do not have the delay then that is very solid proof that the astronauts were not on the moon.

      But you know it is very easy to delay the sound even if the astronauts are in the next room and it is a very basic thing and I personally do not think NASA would be so stupid not to delay the audio and if they did not delay it surely someone would have noticed at the time.

      So it is possible that this whole audio thing maybe a red hearing. But certainly if someone can research this and come up with genuine NASA recordings without the delay then that is certainly proof that those recordings were not made with men on the moon.

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  34. Andrew says:

    There are mountains of evidence, but I do not want to talk about it because there is an absolute proof.

    The fact that no man has ever went beyond 400 mile from the earth (even NASA admits this fact) since the Apollo manned missions to me is the absolute proof that the moon landings were not real.

    Gentlemen, think about it !
    It is not human nature….

  35. Steve says:

    Vasudama…of course it’s the same. It’s two people talking to each other. Even when there is very little delay…talking on the phone can be confusing- at times. We interrupt each other, we talk over the top of each other. To say you found 8 seconds of “proof” in a 3 day journey is preposterous.

    And many scientists and amateur radio operators followed the transmissions….nobody has come forward. Monitoring am object in orbit would have been a clear indicator. But no one has come forward. That’s because they all monitored a craft traveling somewhat directly away from Earth…NOT in orbit. If we agree that the astronauts likely DID blast off from Earth…it would be nearly impossible to fool the millions of people who trained their radio receivers on the skies.

    To think NASA could pull off a fake one time…is well…very impressive! But NASA says they went seven times. We don’t talk about that too much do we? How do you fake it SEVEN TIMES?

    You can’t.

    Thank you for the privilege of discussion.

    • Hare Krishna Steve

      You are very naive. All anyone can tell about a radio signal is the direction it is coming from. So you know all they had to do is have a satellite between the earth and the moon and send the simulated moon mission stuff up to the satellite and have the satellite transmit it. Then the audio is coming from the direction of the moon and no one can distinguish that signal from a signal coming from the moon. All you can do is point your antenna at the moon and if you get a signal you do not know where that signal is being broadcast from. It could be coming from anywhere in the line between the earth and the moon. So it is very, very easy to fake the transmissions from the moon in such a way that no one could tell they were not coming from the moon.

      NASA did not pull of a fake at all. Even at the time there were questions about it and those doubts and questions about the authenticity of the ‘man on the moon’ story have just grown and grown till now when at least half of the people in the US at least have doubts as to whether we ever went to the moon and a very large percentage just don’t believe this fairy tale at all. So NASA was not able to fake it at all. Now at least half of the Americans are not convinced and NASA can not produce any evidence whatsoever that they have ever been to the moon and they can not go back now.

      Of course you may say then why don’t they just fake it now? They have wonderful technology to fake it now? But now people would really be watching and now the general public have the same technology that they have so nowadays it would be very, very difficult for them to fake it and get away with it. So they are stuck. The can not prove they went to the moon and they can not go back to the moon.

      It is really so easy to fake these things in such a way that very few people are aware of what is going on and you know the US government is very persuasive. They will kill the family and children and the person who speaks out. And this is all about ‘national security’.

      Anyhow the way you fake it seven times is you just do the same thing seven times. You make a simulation supposedly to train everyone for the real thing and you transmit that simulation data stream up to the satellite that they had put there between the moon and the earth for exactly this purpose and when the ‘real’ mission comes you just transmit a simulation data stream to the satellite and no one can know if it is being transmitted from the satellite or from the moon. That is how you fake it seven times.

      You know that whole grand show of the NASA ground control with all those screens and everything is all running on just one single data feed coming down to it form the moon [or from the simulation satellite] And there is no way anyone can tell the difference, if the data stream is coming from the moon or from the simulation satellite. So you only have to have a very small group of people ‘in the know’. Everyone else is just believing that this is a real moon landing mission, when in fact they are just running a simulation. The astronauts can be on there moon set and they can be also playing back prerecorded things and you know, a whole Hollywood production, and just transmitting it up to the simulation satellite and no one can know that it is not coming from the moon because the satellite is between the earth and the moon….

      So these things are very easy and well within the technology available to NASA in the 60s and at that time the US population was much more gullible and really they did believe anything they saw on the television. So it was not at all easy to fool them. Now it would be much more difficult for NASA to fool the people of America and the world with another fake moon mission. So they are really a little bit stuck…

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  36. vasudama says:

    Steve,
    You are the one that is ‘blindly accepting’ NASA whereas we are questioning.
    Talking over a phone is NOT the same as talking to a person on the moon.
    It is not just 8 seconds – every transmission of every mission recorded has no delays.
    And no thay can’t keep this hoax a secret – we are exposing them.

    • Hare Krishna Vasudama

      I do not know about this Prabhu, “every transmission of every mission recorded has no delays”, that is not true because I was alive at the time and remember hearing some delays at lest.

      You know surely people would notice that…

      So I do not know, it maybe that someone has edited some of the tapes to take out the blank space to make them easier to listen to.

      You would have to find actual original material to prove this one way or another.

      It is very easy to make a delay in the transmissions, even if they are not on the moon, and you know everyone knows it takes time to send a radio message to the moon and back. So actually I am not convinced that NASA was so stupid to not delay the conversations.

      So you have not yet convinced me on this one…

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  37. Steve says:

    This youtube video is proof of nothing, let alone “absolute proof”. You ask us to question NASA, yet you blindly accept anything without question. Ever talk on the phone…and talk OVER the other person? Of course you have. There are beeps in the audio, what are those? Plus there are also just random comments that is not a call and response. There’d be no delay. You found 8 seconds of transmission and call it “absolute proof”?
    And rocks cannot be faked. Even a particle accelerator cannot duplicate the random meteorite impacts of the moon rocks. The isotopes cannot be faked either. The rocks have been examined by HUNDREDS of scientists that would love to be The One the proves NASA faked it. And yet…no one has done so. Why? Because they can’t.
    Photography anomalies? Proportions are different on the moon. There’s also more than one light source. The moon is very reflective- a light source!
    Dust? Dust falls differently on the airless, low gravity moon. Check the moon rover, you can see the dust particles acting strangely.

    More importantly…how do you have such a HUGE hoax and keep it secret? Impossible. And let us say, for the sake of argument….you did mange to pull it off. You did it SIX MORE TIMES? Are you serious here? Come on.

    When the hoax….or rather HOAXES become more improbable than the event, there is a problem. You won’t publish my links…but I urge all readers to do what Madhudvisa asks us to do but refuses to do for himself….do your homework! There are many non-NASA resources available. For a start, go to youtube and search “hammer feather moon”. Very cool.

    • Hare Krishna Steve

      You are really brainwashed…

      It is absolutely not possible to speak to a man on the moon without at least a 3 second delay for the radio waves to travel from the earth to the moon and then back again. So it is absolute proof that the person NASA ground control was speaking to in this example was DEFINITELY NOT ON THE MOON. And I am sure if you go through the audio you will find this is a very common problem with it. They are not speaking with men on the moon.

      It is not that this is the only proof that the NASA astronauts were not on the moon. There is oceans of proof for this but you are completely unable to present to me even one ounce of proof that the astronauts were ever on the moon.

      Everything you are hopeless about but you still cling on to this crazy idea that the “moon rocks” prove that there were men on the moon to collect them. But you know this is not proof Steve. Because moon rocks just fall out of the sky as Lunar Meteorites. So if one wants to get these “moon rocks” they can be collected right here, on Earth. And yes they may be a little different from earth rocks because probably they did fall out of the sky and probably they are not earth rocks and probably they are not faked. And Steve you know that the Russians also have “moon rocks” and the Russians never sent any men to the moon. So even without sending men to the moon one can acquire “moon rocks”. I am not convinced that these rocks are even “moon rocks”. You “scientists” are such fools that NASA can give you any rock and spin a story about it and you will believe that it is a “Moon Rock”.

      As far as the moon being “very reflective” you should do your research into the crazy scientists crazy ideas. They actually say the moon is not very reflective at all. [they have to say this Steve because their ‘moon rocks’ are not very reflective, and the moon is made out of “moon rocks”, right, so the moon should be the same color as the “moon rocks”… So they have got themselves into a great mess here. Of course the moon is actually very reflective. Any fool knows that. But the “scientists” say the moon is not very reflective at all. They say it reflects less than 7% of the light that falls on it and it is the color of a dark asphalt road… So you are not going to get floodlight style reflections off a dark asphalt road are you Steve?

      So it is like this with EVERY ASPECT of the NASA fairy tale. Everything is inconsistent and impossible. They have instant radio communication with the astronauts on the Moon — impossible, there are multiple light sources, and we are talking about studio floodlights here, on the moon — impossible, you can list hundreds of impossible things like this in the NASA fairy tale. But Steve you can not even give us one single piece of proof that men ever walked on the moon.

      So I think you have been soundly defeated.

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  38. vasudama says:

    The truth is not in the pictures (or the rocks) – it is in the sound vibrations.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6Tku-CgNnI

    • Hare Krishna Vasudama

      The truth is in everything about this bogus NASA ‘man on the moon’ story. No matter what you look at you find problems and contradictions. The NASA story just can not be true.

      It is true, however, that the video you mention here does provide absolute solid proof that the conversations NASA broadcast between Houston ground control and the astronauts were certainly not conversations with people on the moon. As the video points out the radio waves are not traveling faster than the speed of light and the round trip to the moon is getting to be almost 500,000 miles, and the speed of light is like 180,000 miles/second. So you have to have at least a three second delay between the time the Houston people speak [It will take about 1.5 seconds to get to the moon and when the astronaut replies that reply will take another 1.5 seconds to get back to Earth. So a total delay of 3 seconds or so…] But there is no delay at all. Wherever the astronauts were NASA ground control could get radio messages to and from them practically instantly. So you are correct. This is absolute proof that the astronauts were not on the moon…

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  39. Hug Doug says:

    NASA overcame a great deal of technical obstacles to go to the moon. i do not need faith at all to be assured that NASA sent men to the moon – i can look up how they did it, even go to see the Saturn V on display, and see that they had the technology to do so.

    i say creating micro-meteorites in the lab is not possible. you say it is, and that it is easy. i say… how? show me how they did it. show me where they produced these fake moon rocks. show me where we have the facilities to do so. show me the people who have made them.

    i do not require faith. my assurance is based on their ability to do so with the technology they had.

    however… YOU do not have any such assurance. you make things up off the top of your head and say “it’s proof!” when it is just your idle speculation. YOU take this on faith. you blindly believe we did NOT go to the moon when all the evidence points otherwise.

    by the way. the Apollo astronauts took several hundreds of pounds of moon rocks back with them. the Soviet probe that collected a lunar sample and returned it back to Earth only collected a few ounces. it would have taken thousands of such unmanned missions to return the amount of material that the Apollo astronauts collected. the sample returned by the Soviet probe matches the samples of the Apollo astronauts. that’s evidence that the material did indeed come from the Moon.

    • Hug, you already saw on wikipedia that those ‘moon rocks’ naturally fall out of the sky and land on earth all by themselves. If one simply collects these ‘lunar meteorites’ or whatever, then you can get quite a good collection of ‘moon rocks’ without even having to leave the earth.

      As far as NASA being unable to put tiny indentations on rocks that are similar to the indentations that would occur if small particles [micro-meteorites or whatever…] make when they hit the rocks you have a very low estimation of the abilities of NASA as I have already pointed out. You can not say NASA are so hopeless that they can not fire some small objects at a rock at very high speed to create these little indentations in the moon rocks and at the same time they are so wonderfully smart that they can get men on the moon and get them back home safely.

      Hug, working with rocks, we have been expert at that as a species for thousands of years now. We can cut them and shape them and put any sort of finish on them that we want to and we can fire high speed small objects at them and make little indentations on them. You can just shoot a shotgun at a rock and you will probably get a nice micro-meteorite impact pattern on them.

      You know it is not rocket science, making fake moon rocks…

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  40. vasudama says:

    Srila Prabhupada: “It is my firm conviction that they did not go to the moon. Neither they’ll be able to go to the Mars as they have planned it.” (Room Conversation, July 6th, 1976, Washington, D.C.)

    Srila Prabhupada: “Yes, so where is the doubt? It is a fact that they did not go to the moon. That’s a fact.” (Morning Walk, June 10th, 1975, Honolulu)

  41. Steve says:

    Madhudvista…your reply to Hug Dug makes no logic reason or sense once again. You are comparing Mount Everest to the moon? Like Dug says…you keep using inane and illogical metaphors to rationalize your belief. I ask NASA for proof, and they show me a rock that isn’t of this world. I ask YOU for proof and you tell me “we haven’t been back since- we have been back to Mt. Everest…so it impossible we ever went there to begin with if we’ve never been back”.

    No proof…only conjecture. NASA has provided as much evidence as possible, even physical evidence. You’ve provided vaporous and porous opinion, guesswork,inference and bias.

    I only wish you would apply the same process and rules to yourself that you do to NASA. You just except your own thoughts so swiftly and easily. It’s a very ugly way for a thinking spirit such as yourself.

    • Hare Krishna Steve

      The ‘rock that isn’t of this world’ is virtually identical to the rocks that come down to this world as meteors. So rooks like that are available on this world. It does not prove that anyone has gone to the moon to get it…

      You can not just blindly believe whatever you hear. You have to test it. And you have to consider all the evidence. You have a blind, fanatical belief in NASA and no facts or contradictions will faith your blind religious faith in NASA. You completely refuse to consider logic. So what can I say except:

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

      • Hug Doug says:

        FALSE. the rocks that we have as meteorites are very different chemically. they have been scorched by the heat of passing through the atmosphere. the rocks we have from the moon have none of those changes, and show evidence of billions of years of space weather, such as particles from the sun, micro-meteorite impacts, and (most importantly) utterly no effects of water or atmospheric weathering.

        Moon rocks are very different from Earth rocks. any competent geologist would recognize the differences right away.

        • Hare Krishna Hug

          If you have billions of dollars to spend the least you can do is come up with some moon rocks that look a bit genuine. Moon rocks is the only thing they did, so surely they can do a reasonable job of this. Anyhow your logic is faulty. Heating up a rock does not change it chemically. Yes it may scorch the outside a bit, maybe even melt the outside a bit, but there is no chemical change. If you can find a big enough rock that has fallen from space and break it up into smaller pieces then you will have your ‘moon rocks’. The inside is not scorched by the heat, only the outside, and there is no effect of water or atmospheric weathering either… and these things can be of course faked, “millions of years of space weathering, micro-meteorite impacts.” Don’t you think we had the technology to make some micro-meterite impacts… That is not a very difficult thing to do…

          You know if all you have to hold onto is a little rock. If that is the only thing that you can come up with as ‘proof’ for man being on the moon, then it is a very, very weak argument.

          Have you ever seen and tested one of these rocks yourself. Have you considered how easy it would be to make one of these ‘moon rocks’ right here on earth? We have the space rocks here already, we don’t need to get them from the moon.

          And have you considered that it is unreasonable to believe that the moon is made of dark-brown rocks? Look up at the moon on a full-moon night and see how brilliantly it is shining. How can those dark brown moon rocks shine so brilliantly? I would strongly suggest that the moon is not made out of those ‘moon rocks’ that NASA is showing us…

          Do we have the film of the astronauts collecting these moon rocks? As far as I can see the moon is covered by sand, the stuff that has the astronauts footprints in it. Why didn’t they bring back some ‘moon sand’ as well. Then you would have both ‘moon rocks’ and ‘moon sand’.

          Anyhow if you believe that it is beyond the capacity of NASA with billions of dollars at stake to fake a few moon rocks then what can I say?

          Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

          Madhudvisa dasa

          • Hug Doug says:

            FALSE. a moon rock is impossible to fake. even today, we simply do not have the technology to fake a moon rock. the surfaces of the moon rocks are embedded with thousands of micro-meteorites, particles from the solar wind. they are chemically distinct from Earth rocks, have been found to contain minerals which simply do not exist here on Earth, and some are older than the oldest rocks we have found here on the Earth. all of this is impossible to re-create in a lab.

            smashing open a lunar meteorite would not result in a surface that presents evidence of such space weathering as micro-meteorites. there exists no facility that could produce them.

            a geologist would know a fake within a few hours of studying a false moon rock.

            samples from the surface of the Moon is the strongest evidence that we went to the moon, because it’s impossible to fake. you think it’s weak evidence? if so, then it is clear you know nothing about geology or chemistry, and you should remove yourself from this conversation.

            if you still think it is simple to fake, prove it. show me where we have the facilities to create thousands of micro-meteorites and billions of years of exposure to the solar wind.

            the moon rocks are not the only evidence. but they are tangible pieces of the Moon that can be studied in labs here on Earth. samples have been distributed around the world for geologists to study… you really think that if they were fake, of the thousands of scientists who have studied them, none would notice?

            … did you know that the albedo (color) of the moon is the color of dark asphalt? it is a very dark grey, and only reflects about 7-12% of the light that hits it. it shines brightly because of its size, not because it is composed of light-colored rocks.

            … don’t be stupid, of course the astronauts brought back lunar sand / dust. many, many bags full of it, as it was very easy to sample with a small shovel. there’s plenty of video of them collecting samples just like that.

          • Just see, sending men to the moon, easy in 1960, impossible now…

            Faking a moon rock. IMPOSSIBLE!!!

            You are a FOOL!!!

            Yes. I know they say the moon is the color of dark asphalt…

            “It shines bright because of it’s size…” Crazy… Insane…

          • Hug Doug says:

            prove me wrong. how do you fake a moon rock?

            how is it insane? show me how this is wrong.

          • It is insane that you have unlimited faith that NASA can send men to the moon and fly them back home safely, in this regard NASA is able to overcome all impossible obstacles. But faking a moon rock. Never. NASA could not do that…. IMPOSSIBLE!!! You are a fool. Of course they can fake a moon rock. But they can not send men to the moon…

            Because you do not know how to do it does not mean that it is impossible…

            And how do you know it is a moon rock anyhow? They have just told you it is a moon rock and you believe them. They could show you anything at all and explain the features and how all these little pit marks prove it is a moon rock, and you foolishly and unquestionably just believe them…

            It could be anything. And little pit marks? You don’t think we have the technology to put little pit marks in rocks but you think we can send men to the moon???? Crazy…

            You have to admit that your belief in the “man on the moon” story is just faith. Blind faith in NASA. That is all. Blind religious faith… You can not prove that men walked on the moon. And the fact that NASA now say it is impossible to send men to the moon, unless we give them trillions of dollars and at least 20 years, and then only maybe… Means that at the moment we do not have the technology to go to the moon. So we did not have it in the sixties. It we had the technology in the sixties we would have the technology now, and it would have been developed and would be better now. So there would be no question of NASA saying going to the moon is now impossible.

            This is why I say you are a fool. You do not seem to be able to comprehend anything at all. You have not ability to think logically. You just have blind fanatical faith in NASA…

            Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

            Madhudvisa dasa

          • geoff boxer says:

            Dear Hug Doug,

            Surely ‘rocks’, as you put it, are geological formations that differ according to their location. Why would ‘rocks’ from the moon, which is nothing but a large piece of matter that broke away from earth billions of years ago, have a different composition from earth? I have no knowledge of geology so perhaps I am wrong but would like to be enlightend.

          • Hare Krishna Geoff

            I am not a geologist either and I think also Hug is not a geologist… I did a bit of searching on the ‘moon rocks’ and:

            There are currently three sources of Moon rocks on Earth: 1) those collected by US Apollo missions; 2) samples returned by the Soviet Union Luna missions; and 3) rocks that were ejected naturally from the lunar surface by cratering events and subsequently fell to Earth as lunar meteorites. [wikipedia]

            So according to the scientists there are ‘moon rocks’ available on the earth that “rocks that were ejected naturally from the lunar surface by cratering events and subsequently fell to Earth as lunar meteorites” and the Russians have moon rocks and they never had any men on the moon. So the Russians also claim to have put retro-reflectors on the moon without any men on the moon. So we can see that there is no need to have men on the moon to get moon rocks anyhow or to put retro-reflectors on it. So even if we have moon rocks, they fall naturally from the moon and Russians have them also, so one does not need men on the moon to get moon rocks. So having moon rocks does not prove men have walked on the moon.

            It seems you are correct and the ‘moon rocks’ are very similar to earth rocks, the differences being small variations in the amounts of particular minerals, etc. Apparently they seem to be like earth rocks but are lacking the signs of water in their production. So there may be some artificial processing they can do to remove the water. I do not know. As far as I can see the lack of water is one of the main things. Apparently generally the oxygen levels are very similar to earth rocks. Which is strange as we are lead to believe there is not oxygen on the moon like we have it here. But apparently there is oxygen is in the moon rocks. Maybe they couldn’t get the oxygen out of them…

            So in any case the Russians have moon rocks and the scientists claim that moon rocks fall out of the sky as lunar meteorites… I do not believe that moon rocks fall out of the sky like this… But the rocks they are calling ‘moon rocks’ are the same as these ‘moon rocks’ that fall out of the sky…

            Anyhow my suspicion is that these ‘moon rocks’ have absolutely nothing to do with the moon. They have found them somewhere here on earth and probably they do come from off-planet in the form of meteorites, but where they come from I think no one really knows…

            Anyhow we have shown conclusively that having moon rocks is not at all proof that men ever walked on the moon…

    • geoff boxer says:

      Steve, I get the feeling you are wavering in your belief. As Anderw says; If the US could set up a base on the moon dont you think the advantages would outweigh the cost. Forget the space station; that’s so minor compared with a moon station. People will be asking why we didn’t return to the moon a hundred years from today.

  42. Hug Doug says:

    just so you guys know – saying “the proof that no one has gone to the moon is that no one has gone to the moon since” is absurd. it is proof of nothing, it is not evidence of anything, it is your own speculation.

    that no one has returned to the moon shows but one thing: that no one else has been willing to undertake the expensive and difficult challenge that is going to the moon.

    we definitly DO have the technology. we certainly can build a better moon lander, if the funding to do so was available.

    but it is not.

    could we go back to the moon again in less than 10 years? certainly! but we must be willing to devote the time, energy, and most importantly, the money to do so.

    • The funding was offered to NASA by George Bush and the answer from NASA was “Sorry we can’t do it.” At the time I asked the NASA people why and they said things like ‘well we don’t have the saturn-1 rockets anymore’ and ‘well all the people who knew how to go to the moon are dead now…’ Stuff like that.

      So it is a lie that NASA did not have the funding. The funding was offered but they could not do it.

      As far as ‘could we go back to the moon in 10 years?’ that is nonsense. If we had already been to the moon in the 60’s and already perfected the technology then to enable many safe manned return trips to the moon then that technology would have be used and perfected by now and be so much improved that now manned space travel would be commonplace. If you can send multiple groups of men to the moon and broadcast live television from the moon and bring them all home safely multiple times you have already got the technology for manned interplanetary travel. So if it was true there would be no question of ‘can we return to the moon in ten years’, we would already be living on the moon and have been to all the other planets in the solar system and we would at least have done a lot of scientific research on the moon and maybe even found some minerals or something there that could be commercially exploited you know.

      Men are not like this. It is not that we would climb Mt Everest once and then no one would ever do it again for another 50 years. No. When we achieve something then we take advantage of that and develop and perfect the technology. It is just insanity to say that we had perfected the technology to put men on the moon in the 60’s and now we can’t go to the moon but perhaps with money and time we could go back in ten years. That is nonsense. If the ‘man on the moon’ story is true then we have already spent the money and time and have already developed the technology to put men on the moon. So we do not have to spend the money and time again, we just have to build the thing again and go to the moon in it. And that, with no research and development cost, is just fabrication that can easily be done in China or India for a tiny fraction of what it cost in the 60’s.

      So you are speaking a whole lot of nonsense here and I think you know that. If the ‘man on the moon’ story is true then we have the technology to put men on the moon already and we don’t have to spend any money or time to develop it…

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy.

      Madhudvisa dasa

      • Hug Doug says:

        FALSE. Congress did NOT appropriate enough funding for Project Constellation, and this is why it failed. this is a matter of public record, not subject to your speculative opinion. the project never got the funding it needed to get it off the ground. it was a funding problem, not a technology problem. not having a Saturn V rocket is an engineering challenge, but it requires funding for the engineers to actually build something. Congress did not give NASA the funding level requested by George Bush.

        on a side note, the new SLS rocket is being designed to get NASA astronauts to the Moon or Mars. it DOES have the necessary funding to bring it to completion. it’s a matter of money.

        again, FALSE. we certainly do have the engineering proficiency to design a rocket that can get people to the Moon. the problem is, and always has been, the political willpower to provide the funding to do so. there are no technical obstacles to designing a rocket to the Moon.

        saying that the proof we never went to the moon is because space travel should now be commonplace is your speculative OPINION, it is certainly not a fact.

        YES! you’re right! we did have interplanetary travel capability! and it was AMAZING! sadly, however, the folks in power (congress) decided to cut funding for continuing manned deep space travel in favor of the Space Shuttle. I would speculate, as you do, that, in my opinion, had we continued the high level of funding for manned deep space travel, it would be, while not commonplace, certainly not unheard of. we might very well have had a manned mission to Mars in the 1980s, which was the tentative post-Apollo plan NASA had. but! they did not get the money to do so.

        however, it is my opinion, that, with a high level of funding, we could easily design a rocket to the Moon within 10 years. we do have the technical expertise to do so. the only thing we lack right now, is the money to do it.

        let me put something in perspective for you. you don’t seem to understand something fundamental here.

        the Apollo space program cost the USA approximately $25 billion dollars in 1973 dollars. that’s roughly equivalent to $150 billion dollars in today’s money.

        no individual has that kind of cash laying around. it’s not something that your average person can just pick up and do (like going to Mt. Everest). you seem to think it is. this is wrong-thinking. most entire NATIONS do not want to spend that kind of money, either.

        it’s not insanity. it’s a simple political FACT that after the USA was successful with Project Apollo, no other nation wanted to spend dozens of billions of dollars to send people to the Moon.

        BUT it is also a FACT that the technology exists to do so, and YES! as you say, it could be fairly rapidly developed, easily within 10 years, if people wanted to spend the money to do it.

        we do have the technology! if you want to spend the money 🙂

        • It is nonsense. It does not cost that much.

          The whole budget for the Indian Chandra Narayana 1 was only 90 million dollars.

          That is not even a tenth of a billion dollars….

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1

          And if you believe this they flew to the moon with that.

          You don’t understand. We already have the technology if the “man on the moon” story is true. We do not have to research it, we do not have to develop it, we just have to fabricate it. And that is not at all very costly. We can do it in China or India and it will cost next-to-nothing.

          So it is NOT a question of money or funding. The problem is we do not have the technology. You don’t have to spend money to develop technology that you already have… Surely you can see this????

          Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

          Madhudvisa dasa

          • Hug Doug says:

            the Apollo space program cost the USA approximately $25 billion dollars in 1973 dollars. that’s roughly equivalent to $150 billion dollars in today’s money.

            that’s for a manned space flight program.

            a VERY SMALL lunar orbiter, such as the Chandrayaan-1, would naturally require a smaller rocket, and is therefore less costly.

            and you’re wrong about not having to research… modern materials and technology is far superior to what we had in the 60s. an exact duplicate would be foolish, because our electronics, materials, etc. are better today. so a complete re-design would be necessary, to develop a more efficient and (hopefully) cheaper rocket.

            we have the technology. but getting the money to do it is problematic, because no one wants to do it.

          • You speak so much absolute foolish nonsense. Why don’t you look around you? When you have a good solid and reliable technology that works you do not change that. Yes, you develop it, you improve it. But you keep the basic solid technology that you have already spent the time and money and research to develop it. That you can see with everything around us.

            Motor cars. We are still using exactly the same internal combustion engine from the 40’s with very no change to the basic operation and basic principles. We have improved it and bolted on electronic computer-controlled fuel injectors and engineered it better, but the engine is still the same. We are still flying in the same jet airplanes that are virtually identical to the jet airplanes that we were flying in in the 1950’s. Nothing has changed, at least not with the jet engines. We have put televisions in the backs of the seats and GPS based autopilot and computers, but the technology that is reliable and works is exactly the same as in the 1950s. Everything is like that. If you actually develop some reliable technology that works you keep it and develop it. You don’t throw it out and start again from scratch.

            And NASA says “well maybe if you give us hundreds of billions of dollars then maybe perhaps in 20 years we can go back to the Moon…” This is such nonsense. NASA went from no space program at all to putting men on the moon in only six or so years in the 60s. And supposedly they developed a very reliable technology to do this. Repeatedly taking groups of men to the moon and safely bringing them back to earth. The Apollo Space program started with nothing in 1963 and by 1968 they had Apollo 8, which was a manned mission that orbited the moon and returned to the earth. So it only took them five years to go from absolutely nothing to being able to fly men to the moon and back. And by 1969, only one year later they had Apollo 11 and were orbiting the moon and flying down to the moon on there little moon lander [with tin-foil walls….] and flying back up to their spaceship with it also…

            So the Apollo program went from nothing to men on the moon in only 6 years…

            And if it is true they developed a very reliable technology. No one died. Every one got to the moon and back home safely… So if it is true we have that technology now. So if it took only 6 years to go from nothing to Man on the Moon, and if we have that technology now, then all we have to do is build it, fabricate it, sure, yes, we can take advantage of whatever advances there have been in materials and in technology. So we can make it better than in the 60’s. But there is no need for any research and development, that is already done. Only a bit of improvement to take advantage of the new materials and technology, but the basic principles are the same of course, just like the jet engine or the internal combustion engine.

            If you want to make a car or an airplane it is no big deal. You know the technology, you know how it works, you just have to build it. It is not very expensive. If we actually have the technology for traveling to the moon then it is the same thing, it is not expensive, nor will it take more than a year or two, we just have to build it and go to the moon.

            And that was George Bush’s point. He was prepared to give NASA whatever funding they needed to go back to the moon, but of course he wanted them to go back to the moon during his term in office. So he was looking for a result in a few years. But NASA came back and said that “No way… It’s going to take us at least 20 years.” There you have absolute proof that we never went to the moon in the 60’s and that we don’t have the technology to go to the moon now.

            It is insane. It took less than six years to get to the moon from no space program at all in the sixties, now after doing that and after having the technology to go to the moon already NASA says it will take at least 20 years and trillions of dollars to go back to the moon? This is insanity and only fools and idiots [with all due respect] can believe this nonsense…

            Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

            Madhudvisa dasa

        • geoff boxer says:

          Hug Doug,

          $150 billion, even if it’s true is not much for the US government. They waste that much on much less worthy projects.

      • Anderw says:

        “Men are not like this. It is not that we would climb Mt Everest once and then no one would ever do it again for another 50 years.”

        I was thinking exactly the same. Even at this very moment there are people from different countries climbing up Mt Everest. It is simply not “HUMANe NATURE” to step down from moon landing to low orbit space station after 50 years.

        Regarding the moon landing being expensive, one year of war costs more than the entire NASA spending in the past. Also a moon base would be invaluable not only for studying/monitoring the deep outer space but also for military applications.

        Sometimes I wonder about the pschology of people who get upset and start calling names like Hoax or conspiracy Idiots. Do they honestly believe in moon landing deep in their hearts or are they just too ashamed and embarassed to admit the truth.

        • Hug Doug says:

          yes, it is tragic that we spend money on wars, rather than space exploration. but that is what Congress wants to do, rather than explore space. that is where they are willing to spend money. i agree with you that a lunar base would be a great thing to have! (though it would have almost no military applications)

          the name calling comes about because it is stupid to be so blind as to ignore history and deny that we did something so amazing, for which there is literally tons of evidence.

          • “literally tons of evidence????”

            moon rocks which can be found / made on earth, lunar laser ranging which is inconclusive and does not prove there are retro-reflectors on the moon and even if there are retro-reflectors on the moon Russia has put some there and they have never had men on the moon, so retro-reflectors on the moon does not prove man on the moon, photos and video from NASA with heaps of anomalies.

            If you know of any other “evidence” that man has been on the moon then please let me know…

            So there is no evidence. You, the “man on the moon” believers just blindly believe NASA, but there is no proof, only blind faith in NASA…

          • Hug Doug says:

            yes, literally tons. the hardware for the missions weighed many thousands of pounds.

            the leftover Saturn V rockets and the units of the LEM, command module (and the ones that splashed down, which we still have), space suits, etc., etc., all of which are evidence that we had the technology to land on the Moon.

          • Hare Krishna Hug

            That they have tons of equipment they say went to the moon does not mean it went to the moon… As I say you are not able to think logically… That they may still have a Saturn-V rocket is not proof they went to the moon… This is complete nonsense….

  43. geoff boxer says:

    I hate to say it but, even though I get fed up with hearing conspiracy theories, It’s obvious this moon walk was a fake and we are controlled economically and politically. But I like my lifestyle and still prefer living in this relatively free society than the alternative. God bless America and keep me away from so called do gooders and socialists. Our leaders have to do what they feel keeps our democracy intact, so what’s a few billions spent on pretending we went to the moon. It’s all good TV after all. Great for telescope sales I would imagine.

  44. david says:

    Lots of brainwashed sheep here. The Lunar Landings Never happened. Way to believe the US government propaganda machine 🙂

  45. E Richards says:

    It was seem that we live in an age where conspiracy theories are being applied to almost every event that occurs and no amount of corroborative evidence in support of a particular event will convince some people. The bottom line in all this is that it is simply impossible to convince brain dead cretins of anything.

    • But you have no evidence that men ever walked on the Moon. Every piece of evidence points to the likelihood that it was a false show. You have to at least admit that it is far more likely that the moon missions were faked than the far out conspiricy theory that man actually walked on the moon many times in the sixties and since then no man has ever left earth orbit and now there is no one anywhere on this planet who has any idea at all how to put men on the moon. You know that George Bush told NASA to go back to the moon and he was prepared to fund it but they replied, “we can’t…”

      So if you can explain how we could very easily send multiple successful groups of men to walk on the moon and broadcast live television from the moon in the 1960s when the technology was like cave-man technology compared to what we have today. And now we can’t even get a man out of earth orbit????

      It does not make sense. It is like flying across the Atlantic a few times and then just not flying anywhere at all for more than 50 years.

      If we could fly men to the moon and back home safely more than fifty years ago then by now interplanetary travel would be commonplace and there would be at least regular exploration and research teams going out. But no. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. No one has gone anywhere off planet since then. That we do not have the technology to put men on the moon now is absolute proof that we did not have the technology to put men on the moon fifty years ago.

      WAKE UP!! STOP SLEEPING!!! EVERYTHING YOU SEE ON THE TV IS NOT TRUE!!!!

      • Csaba Andocs says:

        Most Dear Madhudvisa Dasa, You are so correct. The fact that man has never been outside of earth orbit is indeed true. It can be proven “scientificaly”. Scientists say there is a spinning iron core at the center of the earth producing a magnetic field (earth’s magnetic field)that protects us from the deadly cosmic rays from outer space, and also from charged particles and radiation from the sun as well. The moon exists OUTSIDE this protective field and has no field of it’s own(and hence is made out to be lifeless in the 60’s T.V. portrayal)ALL EARTH LIFE DIES WHEN EXPOSED TO THOSE LEVELS OF RADIATION! Just because it was on T.V. does not make it true. Please read Srilla Prabhupada’s translations.

        • Hare Krishna Csaba

          Yes, of course you are correct. We are very protected here on earth, not just by the magnetic field of the earth but also by the atmosphere of the earth which keeps out so many nasty things that would otherwise kill us. Outer-space is undoubtedly a very dangerous and hostile place and as you say it is not so easy for us to leave the protection of the earth as NASA would have us believe.

          Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

          Madhudvisa dasa

  46. Neil says:

    YES they walked on the moon! For Pete’s sake will all you idiot’s out there get a freakin’ life?? They wouldn;t broadcast it on all 3 networks if it had been faked! I also know that Newsman Walter Cronkite would never report on anything that was not a real story. Good grief I;’m sick of stupied people who have nothing better to do than talk about conspiricy theories. Lastly though,what would they have accomplished by faking such a thing? If ANY of you beleive it was fake,you are a damn fool!

  47. David says:

    WOW, I found this blog while searching for a recording of Hare Krishna I had and loved in 1981. Never thought a conspiracy would be highlighted on krishna.org. Are there also other conspiracy blogs on here about the Boston bombing now? Hare Krishna everyone, keep believing in your conspiracies and forget to chant.

  48. clifton says:

    I read this when it was only weeks old and amazed that it continues to be a issue to those who still believe that man walked on the moon. The Universe has its way of speaking to us. By lying JFK was assassinated on t.v. His brother shared the same fate. His son died in a plane crash. While Neil Armstrong died just when the Lance Armstong saga exploded. And these are just the ones that comes to mind. Even if you have everything available to you today to help you to get you to the moon. The design was never for our kind.

  49. Gerald Talbot says:

    Surely with all the technology we have at our disposal now days such as high powered telescopes the answer to did man actually land on the moon should be fairly easy to solve as all of the landings were made on the side of the moon visible from Earth. We even have satellites equipped with cameras that can pinpoint an object on Earth down to 2m so this technology could also be used. If it was just a hoax (and I am not saying it was true) then eventually someone will be able to spot the lunar rover one day as this supposedly never came back and is still on the moons surface.

    • Hare Krishna Gerald

      Yes, you are right of course. We already have the technology that for a very small cost we could send up to the moon a couple of those imaging satellites that they have orbiting earth that take the photos for google earth. Then we could see the whole surface of the moon at the same resolution as we are seeing the earth through google earth. We have had this technology for 30 years or more. The most recent ‘Moon mission’ as far as I know was India’s Chandranarayana-I, or some name like that, and they did photograph the landing sites of one of the so called man on the moon missions. But all you can see on those photos is a few black pixels on a white background. You can’t see anything. But why not? This thing was supposed to be orbiting the moon only a few miles up, much lower than the google earth satellites are orbiting earth, they should have been able to get perfectly clear pictures of the moons surface from just a few miles away… Of course they would have got fantastic pictures… But we just get a few black pixels on a white background…

      So then you have to question if this Indian unmanned thing was really orbiting the moon at all. If it was it could have sent back truly stunning photos of the moons surface with incredible detail. But we got no detail at all.

      So you are right, with today’s technology they should be able to give us perfectly crisp and clear images of every square foot of the moon’s surface, just as clear as google earth at least. But it does not seem they are capable of this. It would only require putting up a couple of satellites orbiting the moon, and that should be a very, very simple thing well within the limits of today’s technology and not much more expensive than putting satelites up in earth orbit that they are doing routinely without much cost at all…

      So something does not add up here.

      Of course these days computer graphics are so good that if they want to cheat they have a great deal of scope for that. So it is hard to believe anything they say. But it is interesting that after almost 50 years no one has even tried to go back to the moon and NASA still can not provide us with any proof that we ever sent men to the moon…

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

      • Kyle says:

        This has already been done multiple times, by multiple agencies, from multiple countries over the past 5 years or so. Look it up and stop being ignorant. I have provided links in previous comments already.

        • It has not been done Kyle. We do not have any recognizable images of any of the Apollo landing sites and we do not have any google earth quality images of the surface of the moon… It should be very easy to do but they can not provide us with high resolution images of the surface of the moon…

          • andrew says:

            To everyone here: I don’t need the close-up photo of the Apollo landing site from the orbiting satellite. To me, the fact that no country went back to the moon is a “crisp and clear” proof that no man ever landed on the moon. Heck forget the moon ! no man ever went beyond 400 mile from the earth due to the deadly cosmic radiation since the last “moon landing”, and the moon is 239,000 mile away !

            I don’t need the scientific proof. Sometimes the most unscientific proof is the most convincing & solid evidence if you know what I mean. Just watch the three astronauts including Neil Armstrong during the press conference in 1969(you can view it on the youtube). They all look depressed, worried and guility. You know by INSTINCT that they did not walked on the moon !

          • geoff says:

            Hi Andrew,

            Absolutely agree. As I’ve said before the landing was just too easy; Coming down on a hostile surface the right way up and all getting out as if alighting from a train. Yet when they land on earth it’s a splash down. Give me a break 1969? I was around then and we didn’t even have colour TV in Australia and only just had electronic calculators. Xerox was new and we used teleprinters.

          • andrew says:

            I honestly don’t believe that moon landing will happen any time soon, at least not within the 21st century – just my personal opinion and there is no need to get upset and start calling names like “hoax Idiots”. Unlike other events like 9/11, JF Kennedy, etc. the Apollo moon landing CANNOT remain a mystery forever. After another 50 years are they going to say “We went to the moon one century ago but we don’t go there any more because it’s too expensive.” ?… Who do you think will look more link an “idiot” ?…

  50. jai says:

    please guys tell me truth….did neil armstrong really walk on the moon or not?
    if means these pictures are fake or graphics…from this US government made fools and what they get from this fake details and why ?
    please reply anyone clearly……….

    • Hi Jal

      We don’t know. No one knows really. We do know there are many discrepancies in the photos that were supposedly taken on the moon. And NASA have admitted some of them were taken in a studio for publicity. So we know that NASA did have a ‘Moon studio’ and a ‘Moon set’ and could have taken all the photos there. In those days there was no computer graphics or photoshop or anything like that. So the pictures are taken of something that looks like what is in the pictures. So it is either on NASA’s moon set in a studio or somewhere in a desert or on the moon. But we don’t have any proof that any of the photos were taken on the moon. You can make a convincing moon set on the earth and take the photos there and how would anyone know?

      You ask “Why?” And that is because the president of the US at the time made a promise that the US would walk on the moon within a few years and it was in the cold war with Russia and US was quite desperate to show that their space technology was better that the Russian technology. So there was a very strong political reason for the US to fake the moon missions if they could not actually go there….

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

      • andrew says:

        I watched the interview the three astronauts, including Neil Armstrong, soon after they returned from the moon. Watching them talk, I can tell from my instinct that they did not walk on the moon – this to me is the more compelling & convincing evidence than the scientific evidences. The fact that we did not go back to the moon since 43 years ago is the proof that moon landing did not happen. I know I know, some of you will defend by saying “There is no political reason now and there is no money”, blah blah blah. Please stop it ! You know, I know and everyone knows that it is pure BS !

  51. andrew says:

    Everyone should read the following link where Neil Armstrong admitted that the moon landing was a hoax:

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/conspiracy-theorist-convinces-neil-armstrong-moon,2796/

    • Steve says:

      Ummm…Andrew….The Onion is a satire website for entertainment.

      • Andrew says:

        Steve, I did further research and the press conference DID take place at Neil Armstrong’s home. And every quotation you read is exactly what Neil Armstrong said. If not, Onion would have been sued by many organizations including Nasa.

  52. Buckii says:

    why not go to nasa and ask for the info then maybe they will let you in the so called secret, wether or not it was faked or if nazis live on the dark side or if ET is on the darkside watching us, the point of the moon landing was a so called race right but if you think deeper too it then you will see that mankind is “treking” where no man has gone before and that said, RIP Neil in hopes that we go far and beyond

  53. Noom says:

    The two biggest issues that proves man didn’t reach the Moon are:

    1) Landing on the Moon using rockets to slow the descent are incredibly difficult. That all the Apollo landings were slow and perfect is a screaming display that the actual landings were staged. Even unmanned landings are difficult. Most of them have crashed on the Moon.

    2) The temperature on the Moon is almost 300 degrees Fahrenheit! Anybody who thinks a backpack air conditioner is going to keep a man’s body temperature regulated at room temperature is surely crazy. Notice how none of the astronauts ever talked about discomfort in the suits. They didn’t talk about it because they never walked on the Moon. Not only that but the temperature in the shadows, because there is no atmosphere on the Moon, would instantly drop to MINUS 200 degrees Fahrenheit! There is no possible way that any space suit could REGULATE room temperature inside the suit. IMPOSSIBLE. The technology to do even today does not exist!

    The Moon landings were 110% FAKED.

    Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply not enlightened.

    • R Maganti says:

      I don’t agree with the space suit not being able to handle the temperature of 300F. If you look at the astronauts who do the space walk, the temperatures there range between -250F to +250F. So there you have the question to your answer.

    • Joseph NR says:

      one of the best observations on this issue . Thanx
      to me the much publicized foor print is proof solid ! Without moisture mixed in dust cannot form such perfect imprints . In foundry when we make moulds, a precise % moisture is required. Too dry & it wont form sharply defined shapes or patterns. SOme NASA dope ion it says the dust was irrefgular and so it clung to each other to give us shapes like it were wet caly or mud. That is a load of crap since mud isnt exactly well rounded balls under a microscope. That boot print was really a stupid idea by NASA. I understand the need to have faked it in the face of the USSR’s remarkable achievement with space walks & soon then in the 60s’. But NASA goofed up in too many places…

  54. MURALI KRISHNAN says:

    Then How the Chandrayan Find Water in the MOON.

  55. syama says:

    people believe what they want to believe regurdless of whether it is true or not. Prabhupada said they never went to the moon so the hare krishnas are forced by faith to believe it and not accept the overwhelming evidence suggesting otherwise!
    I am a devotee so this has been very challenging for me but I believe they have been to the moon but not to the moon as it is! just like when we go to vrindavana we do not see the real vrindavana.

  56. geoff boxer says:

    Leave me out. I’m too old. I believe what I want to believe and know I can’t change the world. Keep healthy, play golf, play chess, watch TV, read, and don’t carry out actions that can hurt others and give what you can afford

  57. Awe says:

    Dear friends,
    http://wh.gov/9jB
    We have petitioned the White House to start a investigation into the Apollo moon landings.
    We have still 3 days for people to sign the petition. We do not have the illusion to get the
    25.000 people to sign the petition before the 31st of March 2012 but we would like to ask
    you to support our petition as William Bill Cooper was sure Apollo never landed a man on
    the moon.

    AwE130 is asking for an open end honest debate about the Apollo moon landings. We doubt
    the Apollo moon landings and are asking questions to NASA. Today more and more people
    start to doubt the Apollo moon landings and they would like to see some answers from NASA.

    This petition is to show NASA that time is running out for them it is 43 years ago and no other
    space agency nor NASA did sent men or animal beyond earth orbit after Apollo 17. We hope you
    will inform your social network about this petition and ask them to sign the petition.

    The time has come to unite and ask questions to NASA about the Apollo project. Each extra person
    that signs the petition bring a step closer to the truth.
    We know we are not alone!

    Regards Adrian

  58. John says:

    I do not recollect the flag ever waving. I noticed it swiveled…. likely because of gravity… which the moon would still have, but definitely not waving. Even if it was in a studio, there would still be no wind unless if there was a fan blowing, but then it would be a constant wave which we would see. The flag in this case just falls.. Newton’s Laws of motion explain why the flag behaves in the way it does.

    This argument is like trying to disprove evolution. You can say what you want and believe what you will, but the evidence is all there. If you wish not to accept it, then fine. But you look ignorant.

  59. ugo says:

    all that is needed to prove this once and for all is to provide a picture of the land rover on the moon. i don’t buy the fact our telescopes aren’t strong enough or that the hubble is too strong. make something in between and it can be used also to examine the surface of the moon.

  60. valerie Pacheco Cloud says:

    this person who was studyinq this really opened my eyes this has gotta be told to everyone………. this is bull why are us kids studying this stuff in school when its not true what so ever im pretty sure that most of the stuff we are studying are lies too!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the government need to stand up and tell the truth

  61. amanda lowman says:

    its fake all of it dma u qoverment hHAHA and btw flaqs cant flutter in space theres no atmoaphere and its impossible to bend ure finqer in space how r they taknq pics and video tapinq !!!?? then they died of freak accidents why worry about russia goinq first if we didnt even really gop to the moon just sayyinq

  62. Jimbob says:

    if you want to believe whether they put people on a moon, get an old computer try using a floppy disk to do some as simple as saving a picture and transfering it to the c drive, you cant land on the moon with stone age technology! and 40 years later with all our technological break throughs we still cant lol

  63. Geoff says:

    So you are “The only normal person responding”. What a know-all you must be. By the way, check your comment again: “The hilarious part is that those telling the others that they need and education, can barely spell or use proper grammar”.When I went to school I learnt “an education” not “and education”. The majority of personal insults on this website seem to come from people who are convinced the Americans landed on the moon in 1969 and calmly returned without incident. Think about it and you will realise it was technically impossible. There are many cover ups perpetrated by our ‘leaders’ and, for instance, if you believe the Kennedys were not assasinated, you must be very naive.

  64. Kathy says:

    Believing in nothing is not better than believing everything.

  65. theonlynormalpersonresponding says:

    I usually do not respond to controversial topics like this; however, I could not resist. Reading these comments made me laugh. One person will call the other crazy and unintelligible, then try to defend their own positions. The hilarious part is that those telling the others that they need and education, can barely spell or use proper grammar.

    If they went to the moon or not, I do not know. If they faked it that is ridiculous, and if they went then that is pretty neat. There is a lot of compelling evidence each way.

    For those who pointed out how much it cost NASA to go to the moon, and then turn around to ask why they haven’t gone back or put some kind of Rover up there so that you can get a look of what is up there there, take a step back and think for a second. Why would NASA spend millions of dollars so that you can try to decipher whether they had been on the moon or not? As someone already said, they are working on discovering Mars.

    The Moon landing is done with, there is no point in getting heated up about it. My suggestion for all of you? Take a chill pill and learn how to spell before you go calling other people stupid.

    • Kyle says:

      What I think is hilarious is the person saying others can’t spell or use proper grammar has probably the worst grammar I’ve read so far on this page. Good job in teaching us all a lesson in irony.

  66. Dude says:

    I am all done debating. You cannot prove a negative which is what you are trying to do. All the evidence is laid before you…and it is swept away. I find your logic silly and childish, and quite frankly lacking in common sense and intelligence. I wish you all well.

    • You still haven’t given me even one piece of that evidence dude… I am not aware of any evidence that men have walked on the moon and you have not been able to provide me with anything at all. Nothing. Zip. Zero. You have not presented even one piece of evidence that man has walked on the moon. And I have given plenty of evidence that if man had walked on the moon then now, more than fifty years later the United States would be able to at least fly men up and down from the space station which is only a couple of hundred miles above the Earth. But they can’t even do that now, fifty years after we supposedly had the technology to safely fly to the moon and back and land men on the moon…

      Considering this your claim that we walked on the moon is ludicrous. And I think you know that actually…

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  67. kenjim says:

    if man went to moon how come we cant see the flag

  68. Dude says:

    You got me.

    • Geoff Boxer says:

      Go to the video of the astronauts walking on the moon then speed up the footage slightly and you will see the astronauts walking normally. would this not prove the footage is just a normal film in slow motion. Do you realise how unsophisticated the technology was in 1969. Sure, they had power but nothing else. Beaming pictures back from such an incredible distance was just not feasible. Richard Nixon was President in 1969.

      • Dude says:

        You do realize that our technological advances started with NASA scientists then trickled down to the store shelves, and not the other way around? You make the 60s sound like the stone age…it was 40 years ago, not 400. If we weren’t able to send a radio signal to and from the moon I guarantee you we wouldn’t be able to argue over the Internet wirelessly by now.

        • Dude we are talking about live television broadcasts from the moon, 1/4 of a million miles away, with practically no equipment at a time when if you wanted to do a live television broadcast from any place on the Earth you needed three big trucks of equipment and needed to set up a microwave link…

          I think you were not there in 60’s. If you were you would know that compared to the technology we have today the 60’s was the stone age. And they had the same stone-age technology on the moon, or the moon set in Arizona. The still camera they were using on the moon was nothing special, it was a standard camera that you could purchase in the stores, even the video camera they had seems to be a prototype of something that sony released a few years later. So my point is that we all saw the technology that they used to supposedly put men on the moon and it was exactly the same stone-age technology that everyone else had in the 60’s. Their video cameras may have been a couple of years ahead of the public release, and there may be a few other things like this. But they did not have any technology that was significantly ahead of the 60’s stone age technology…

          In the 60’s computers practically did not exist. A computer would take a huge building and only be able to do some very basic mathematical calculations. These room-sized computers actually were completely useless and did not have even a tiny fraction of the processing power of the chip that controls your washing machine. In the 60’s even making an international telephone call on Earth was not an easy thing… So there were no computers really…. Of course they had radio [and even television!] receivers and transmitters and of course they could transmit a signal out in the direction of the moon and they had some radio telescopes and presumably with these big directional antennas they could pick up a radio signal transmitted from quite a long distance away from the Earth. No one has ever suggested that they couldn’t do these things in the 60’s.

          You have more-or-less disproved your self with your statement. Because if in the 60’s we had the technology that would enable us very easily to put men on the moon with the stone-age technology of the time, then that manned space travel technology would have surely filtered down into at least wider use in the society and we would have seen many other manned missions for various research and exploratory purposes at least by many different countries and even organizations. If we actually were able to put men on the moon in the 60’s then manned space travel would be relatively common place now…. But it is not… There has not been a single man who has even left earth orbit since the last Apollo mission… And that really says something. No one has even tried to leave earth orbit since then, even though apparently we had the technology to do it quite reliably in the 60’s. As I have said before this is really very strong proof that men never walked on the moon. If men walked on the moon in the 60’s so many more men would have walked on the moon since then and they would have developed the technology further and walked on mars, and so many other planets… But since the sixties no man has gone any more than a couple of hundred miles above the surface of this planet. And we are to believe that in the 60’s they could go 250,000,000 miles and return safely on many different trips without any serious incidents? Now the US can not even send men up to the space station or get them back… And the technology has advanced so much. What is going on here? The only logical conclusion is that we have never had the technology to put men on the moon and bring them home safely…

          Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

          Madhudvisa dasa

  69. dude says:

    We went to the moon. Period.
    Using the Hubble to view the landing site would be like using a pair of binoculars to see the hair on a moving fly a few feet away.
    It’s fun to believe in conspiracy theories because it makes you feel like you are part of something bigger than the truth.
    No matter what proof of the truth is presented, some people will not believe. Not ONE SINGLE person who thinks we didn’t go would change their minds under any circumstance.
    If a group of scientists who think we didn’t go built a telescope/satellite specifically engineered to see the landing site, launched it, and got back clear photos of the landers, the cries of fraud would only triple.
    Don’t waste time arguing with idiots here…they offer nothing to the scientific community or the population at large.

    • Dude, You have no proof whatsoever that we went to the moon. That is the problem. That is why a large percentage of the population of the world do not believe that we went to the moon. It is crazy. If we went in the 60’s with technology thousands of times inferior to what we have no then we should be able to go now. But we can’t. You know George Bush declared that we would go back to the Moon but NASA told him they can’t. They don’t know how to do it.

      It is crazy…

      We can get on google earth very nice pictures of the earth. And they of course have much higher resolution pictures of course that they do not release. They could easily send up one of these satellites like the thousands they have orbiting the earth that take the pictures for google earth to the moon and put it in orbit around the moon and then we could have google moon. The same resolution we have on google earth. We could see everything on the moon then in great detail.

      They could have done this twenty years ago. But no. We are still peering through telescopes…

      It doesn’t make sense at all…

      If we went to the moon in the 60’s surely we would have been somewhere else by now and back to the moon again. But we have not been outside the earth’s orbit since then. Our only project is the space station and the hubble telescope. Both very much in earth orbit.

      There is absolutely no hint in the history since the Apollo missions that we have the technology for manned space travel to the moon or other planets.

      And there is absolutely no proof that we have been to the moon. If you have any proof let me know what it is.

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

        • I am asking you to give me even one piece of solid proof that we have been to the moon and you can give me nothing. I have been through this discussion before and there is no proof. If you have some proof that does not require blindly accepting that everything NASA says is true then let me know. Otherwise I can only presume you have no proof…

      • Dude says:

        Bush never asked to go back to the moon and NASA never said we couldn’t. We have been, we accomplished putting man there, and now we have the data we need to satisfy our questions. Further data is gathered more safely via probes and advances in technology. The part that amazes me is the statement ” you have no proof. ” Suddenly I realized what I’m dealing with, and I’m ashamed that I allowed myself to be dragged into your world. You go chant and be happy, we didn’t go to the moon if you say so. Science is silly, and never argue UFOs if the persons bumper sticker says I WANT TO BELIEVE.

        • What is the proof Dude????

          Please let me know????

          • Dude says:

            You are correct. If the pictures, videos, testimonies and collective knowledge we gained from going to the moon, if ALL that exists that deals with the moon missions are not enough, you clearly desire to believe we did not go and I cannot change that.

          • It all comes from NASA and you have to admit the possibility that NASA for some reason could not actually go to the moon but that was not an acceptable answer for the president of the United States at the time due to political reasons and of course if NASA said they could not go to the moon they would have lost billions of dollars in funding and may have even been shut down. So the survival instinct would naturally kick in and the idea of faking the man on the moon story would then become a very attractive option.

            So considering this very real possibility we need some independent verification that man can actually go to the moon. So far we have no proof that man has been to the moon and no one has followed in the footsteps of the Apollo missions. This idea that there is nothing there so we won’t go back is nonsense. There is nothing on the top of Mt. Everest but after the first men climbed it so many others have followed and climbed it also. Why? There is nothing up there. Because that is what people do. If we went to the moon once you can guarantee that we would have gone back, and if it was so easy to go to the moon many times in the 60’s we would naturally have gone on to mars and further. Remember Star-Trek and Star-Wars and all the dreams of interplanetary travel?

            But nothing has happened. All we can do is put satellites up in earth orbit and a little space station. No man has been outside earth orbit since the 60’s. Why? It is because no man went outside earth orbit in the 60’s also?

            Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

            Madhudvisa dasa

          • Dude says:

            NASA has shared its finding with the entire scientic community at large. The small minority of people who do not think we went are religious zealots or conspiracy theorists. Beyond that I don’t know of anyone who thinks NASA has kept any secrets. If we faked the first one why fake 11 more? Why is it the only ones who think it was faked are those like you, small voices from the shadows behind Internet chat rooms… I don’t know of one single accredited or well respected agency or person that thinks such nonsense. The technology at the time was light years ahead of a year prior, and from those missions we can thank advancements since. You keep asking for proof, yet in the face of the evidence and universal opinion the burden of proof lies with you to prove they didn’t go. You cannot, the science is there, the evidence is there, just because it does not jive with your religious belief does not make you point valid.

          • Dude says:

            One question I have for you…what “proof” do you need? Would you believe photos of the lander or would you say they see fake,funded by government? Please explain what it would take to prove it and would you change your mind anyway?

          • Hare Krishna!

            The proof can not come from NASA. Because the most likely scenario is that NASA faked the moon mission. That is because we have not proof even now, more than 50 yearCos later, that man every went to the moon.

            The best proof that you did something is that others are able to do it also. And with technology, it develops. And in the past fifty years technology has developed fabulously. Our technology is now 100’s of times better than the technology of the 60s. And computers have advanced thousands of times. Really computers did not exist as we know them today in the 60s. They had nothing. Practically nothing. And they were supposedly able to put men on the moon many times without any real trouble at all.

            Now if that was true and if we really had such great technology for space flight in the 60’s it would have, like computers, developed enormously in the past 50 years and now interplanetary travel would be a normal thing and so many people would be traveling to other planets for so many reasons like simply exploration and when they find something valuable they will want to mine it or extract it and bring it back to earth. There would be colonies set up on the moon and other planets. This would be the proof that we actually had the technology in the 60’s to put men on the moon. That technology would have been developed and would now be much more advanced.

            But we have no technology currently that will allow men to leave earth orbit. Actually US has nothing at the moment for manned space travel at all. Only Russia still maintains some rocket program capable of getting men up and down from the space station that is only a platform a few hundred miles above the earth. Currently the US can not even get me a few hundred miles up to the space station!!! And you would have us believe they could fly men to the moon and leave their spaceship orbiting the moon and take their little luna lander with aluminum foil like walls and land it moon and walk around for a few hours and broadcast live television back to the earth and then take off with their little luna lander and met up with their space ship and get back on it and fly it safely back home to Earth.

            And now the US can not even get men up a few hundred miles to the space station?

            That is proof that the fabulous man on the moon story is nothing by a fabulous lie by NASA.

            If they had such wonderful technology in the 60’s in the past 50 years it, like computers, would have advanced fabulously. But instead now no one anywhere on the planet is capable of manned missions that go outside the earth’s orbit…

            That is solid proof that we did not have the technology to go to the moon in the 60’s

            Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

            Madhudvisa dasa

          • You have no proof, NASA has never given any proof that could not easily faked and what ‘proof’ they have given in the form of photos and film and video footage is so full of inconsistencies that it actually proves that the moon missions were faked. It does not prove that we had men walking on the moon.

            You just have to realize that you do not know if we had men walking on the moon or not. You just have faith in NASA and believe what they say. But there is no logical reason to have faith in NASA. They are a bureaucratic government organization that depends on funding for their existence and that funding would not have been forthcoming unless they could put men on the moon. So naturally there would be a very strong motivation to fake it if they realized it was not possible for them to put men on the moon at that time.

            So at this time, fifty years later, there is still no proof whatsoever that man ever walked on the moon. And that is proof actually that we didn’t.

            Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

            Madhudvisa dasa

    • Geoff Boxer says:

      Your theory sounds a bit like the people who believe in everything they are told. I bet you believed Clinton was telling the truth.

    • geoff boxer says:

      Where do you get your analogy about a hair on a moving fly. It’s just plain ridiculous. The Hubble can see quite clearly rock formations on the moon. Check it out. Just out of interest do you believe Kennedy and his brother Bobbie were shot randomly. Do you believe the US went to Irak because they believed it was looking for Weapons of mass destruction (That’s a Hollywood term if ever I’ve heard one) or could it be they wanted the oil.

  70. Geoff Boxer says:

    Hi Kyle,
    I’m still waiting for an answer to your:
    “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”.If this is true it sounds wonderful. We can power huge ships for the cost of filling our car tank.

      • Geoff Boxer says:

        Very interesting, Kyle but what’s that got to do with “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”

        • Kyle says:

          I couldn’t find the original article that detailed Japan repurposing one of their Earth climate monitoring satellites as a Moon orbiter. The Grail probe does essentially the same thing however. Instead of using booster rockets and thrust to reach the Moon, they are using orbital mechanics such as Lagrange Points to get there. The original point made was that it takes an “impossible amount of energy to reach the Moon” which is just patently false if you understood the first thing about demonstrable and actually very simple physics.

          • Hare Krishna Kyle

            You may like to do some research on the Indian Chandra-Narayana 1 or something. Their first unmanned mission to the Moon. They did it for a reduculously small amount of money, maybe 50 million dollars or something, I can not remember exactly, you can do the research. What they said they did is basically just launch a sattelite orbiting around the earth and raised the orbit up and up gradually until it was close enough to to Moon and shot it into the moon’s gravity and it started orbiting the Moon. I don’t know but that is something like what they said they did… It sounds a little far fetched also…

            Madhudvisa dasa

          • geoff boxer says:

            So you couldn’t find the original article. How convenient. Bit like NASA losing their Videos. Come on! If this Japanese power unit was so good it would be headline news. I remember someone trying to sell an engine that ran on water and some people actually invested money in it. Hope you didn’t

  71. 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 is at the bottom of the universe and Lord Visnu is lying on Sesa-naga there and a lotus stem is growing from his navel and on the top of that navel Lord Brahma was born and this whole universe is more-or-less made out of that lotus. So you have that lotus and the earth planet is there in that lotus in the middle planetary systems and Lord Brahma is up on the top of the Lotus in the upper planetary systems and all those stars and planets are rotating around the polestar. That is the way it is actually. But we can not see it.

          I have discussed these points with physicists and astronomers and they agree that this is a question of relativity. There is no way we can tell from where we are if we are on a planet that is rotating or if the universe is rotating around us. The relative movement is the same. So we can not know one way or the other.

          Unless you can accept that your senses are imperfect and knowledge gathered through your imperfect senses is also imperfect then you are stuck in material consciousness. We have to accept that there is a world beyond what we can perceive with the material senses. And that we can only see a tiny, tiny fraction of the material world and can not hope to understand the workings of the material universe when we can not even see it…

          Everything in the Bhagavatam is the absolute truth, it is correct. Because we can not see it simply means we do not have the power to see it. There are so many things like that which are avan manasa gochara. They are beyond the ability of our minds to imagine and beyond the power of our senses to perceive. So the only way we can get knowledge about these things that are beyond our material vision is by hearing that knowledge from a perfect source. And the Srimad-Bhagavatam is such a perfect source of knowledge. There is a Vedic saying sastra-caksusa that we should see with the eyes of the sastra [scriptures]. Our material eyes are useless, we can not see very much with them at all… We need to see through the eyes of the sastras…

          Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

          • James Simmons says:

            I am neither a physicist or an astronomer. I know about science from reading books by Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, etc. Even that limited knowledge tells me how to know that the Earth is rotating:

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

            As for proving that the stars glow with their own light, not reflected light, go out in the country where it’s dark and look at the sky with any telescope. Even a cheap one from Walgreens should work. When you look at a planet like Jupiter it will appear larger in the telescope. However, the stars will not get larger. Instead, you will see more of them. That demonstrates that they are *much* farther away than the planets are and must be suns, not planets.

          • Hare Krishna James

            If you have a theory and you want to prove it you will find an experiment to “prove” it. This Faucault Pendulum is not a very simple experiment and I note that he is in one place at least using the stars as a fixed reference. So if actually the earth was not rotating and the universe was rotating around the earth you would get the same effect. That is my point. The movement is relative so you can not tell actually what is moving. If you can not understand this simple point then we can not get anywhere.

            As far as the stars you can not prove if they are glowing with their own light or reflecting the light of the sun. Seeing points of light in the sky through a telescope tells you very, very little about them. You can not tell their size, you have no idea of the distance they are away from us, all you can see is a tiny point of light. You know nothing about it. They have speculated so many things and crated a great ‘body of knowledge’ in astronomy but if you research it you will see that the most fundamental things like the distances of the stars from earth for example have been estimated on the basis of many assumptions that may or may not be true.

            My point is that whatever knowledge you or the scientists have gathered through your imperfect senses is imperfect. If you want perfect knowledge you have to get it from someone with perfect senses. That you can get from Krishna and Srimad-Bhagavatam.

            We are no better that the frogs in the well. We can not see the universe. How can we hope to understand it without being able to see it?

            Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

            Madhudvisa dasa

            It does not matter anyhow

          • Steve says:

            Madhudvisa….if we are “no more than frogs in the well”, that would include you. So how do you know your version of the universe is the true one? Would you not suffer from the same frailties of “being human” that you say others possess?

            Yes…you do. I’m AMAZED at how much you know about the moon and The Moan Hoax, given that you and we have never been there. Truly amazing! Relying on your human/frog senses though, right?

          • Hare Krishna Steve

            It is a very good question. This is the whole point. There are only two ways of acquiring knowledge. One is the process of descending knowledge, that means accepting knowledge from a superior, someone who knows. Even the scientists use this process because they accept the knowledge that is passed down from the previous scientists. And whenever you read a book on science you are putting your faith in the authors of the book and you are accepting them as an authority and you are hearing the knowledge from them.

            The other way to acquire knowledge is of course the “scientific method” which is based on observation and experimentation. Now this is a faulty process because the very instruments we are using to gather the data, to observe, our senses, are imperfect. We simply can not perceive a lot of things that exist. They are beyond the range of our senses to perceive. But these imperceptible things play a very important role in understanding ‘how things work’. But they are not perceivable by the scientists so they are ignorant of the existence of these things and so very childishly they try to explain how things work only in terms of the the five gross material elements: earth, water, air, fire and ether. We have five knowledge-acquiring senses, [eyes, ears, nose, touch, taste] and these five knowledge acquiring senses are linked directly the the five gross material elements and can not perceive anything beyond these five elements.

            But in reality things do not work because of the five material elements. The five gross material elements are inert. They have no power of movement or action in any way at all. They can not do anything by themselves. They have to be animated, moved, by the spiritual energy. But before we go there there are also other material elements which the scientists are unaware of because they can not perceive them with their gross material senses. They are the subtle elements of mind, intelligence and false ego. These are also material elements but are of a more subtle nature than the five gross material elements. The mind is very directly connected to the material senses and it is in charge of ‘thinking, feeling and willing’. So the mind takes inputs from the senses and processes them and sends suggestions about things the senses want to do to the intelligence and the business of the intelligence is accepting and rejecting. So the intelligence decides which of the suggestions of the mind it will accept and which it will reject. And the false ego is the identity. And false ego is the false identity that the person is the material body. And above all this is the actual person, the spirit soul, who is the living force that pervades the whole body and makes everything possible and about the soul is the supersoul who is the Supreme Lord also present within the hearts of every living entity.

            So you see in this material world if there was only the five material elements that the scientists are studying [earth, water, fire, are, ether] nothing would ever happen. These elements are completely inert and can never do anything without the spiritual energy, without the living entities. So our foolish scientists try to explain that everything happens by chance and by big bangs but they have no idea what could cause a big bang and this chance theory is so childish. Nothing happens by chance. If you look for it there is a reason that everything happens.

            So I have explained all of this to show that the ‘scientific method’ is a useless method for acquiring knowledge because it depends only in information gathered through the material senses which are imperfect even in gathering the information they can perceive and which can not perceive anything but the inert gross material elements, and therefore do not give sufficient information for one to understand how an observed system is working.

            And there are other flaws with the ‘scientific method’. Once the imperfect and incomplete data is collected through the imperfect senses of the scientist then he has to analyze that data… And unfortunately every conditioned soul has four defects: he makes mistakes, he cheats, he is illusioned [he accepts things to be facts which are actually false], and as we have already elaborately explained, he has imperfect senses. So even after gathering all this imperfect data the scientist is going to make mistakes analyzing it, he is going to cheat, accepting the data that supports his theory and rejecting the data that does not, and he is going to make many fundamental assumptions that are actually false. So you can not get actual knowledge from the ‘scientific method’.

            So if the scientific method is fatally flawed then the only other way to get knowledge is to hear it from an authority, from someone who knows. Of course as we discussed you do this every time you read a text book or go to a lecture at college. But the problem is the lecturers who speak in the colleges and the authors who write the scientific text books have faulty senses and have learned the faulty knowledge that has been passed down from the faulty scientists. So this is just a process of spreading disinformation, rubbish.

            However, if you could find a perfect teacher, if you could find someone who does actually know things perfectly, if you would hear from him and simply repeat the things that you have heard from him then you could understand and speak perfect knowledge. So that is what I do. I have a bona fide spiritual master, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, he is a pure devotee of Krishna and he has heard everything from his spiritual master and Krishna so I am getting the perfect knowledge from him and I can therefore speak the perfect knowledge to you. This is the way to get perfect knowledge. You hear it from a perfect person and repeat it and then you are speaking the perfect knowledge.

            So Srila Prabhupada says they did not go to the moon and if I repeat this, that they did not go to the moon, then I am speaking the perfect knowledge…

            Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

            Madhudvisa dasa

  72. 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

  73. wasak says:

    What about The Dark side of the moon? A big Question??????

  74. 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.

  75. 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

  76. 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.

  77. 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…

  78. 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.

  79. 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.

  80. 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.

  81. 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 ?

  82. 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.

  83. 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

  84. 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

  85. 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

  86. 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.

  87. 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

  88. 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.

  89. 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?

  90. 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

  91. 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.

  92. 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…

  93. 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

  94. 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.

  95. 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

  96. 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.

  97. 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.

  98. 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

  99. 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.

  100. rawa says:

    I think you are right

  101. 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.

  102. 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.

  103. the big guy says:

    i agree with harry. you guys are just doubting the solid truth. if you dont belive it, forget about it.

  104. harry potter says:

    man did walk on the moon and thats that.

  105. 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?

  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. 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?

  108. 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.

  109. 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.

  110. madhu says:

    If we went to the moon or not, the point is what has it achieved, and could money better be used here.

  111. 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!

  112. 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.

  113. 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.

  114. 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?”

  115. 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.

  116. 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.

  117. 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 🙂

  118. Craig says:

    There were nine Apollo missions that went to the moon.

  119. frankbeing says:

    We know of an ancient radiation
    That haunts this dismembered
    constellation…

  120. 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

  121. 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.

  122. lucy says:

    i dont think man landed on the moon i think it was just for publicity

  123. The moon landing was real. There is a ton of ways to ptove.It was not fake like people think it is!

  124. 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

  125. Micheal says:

    I think that picture is soooooo cool

  126. 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.

  127. 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.

  128. 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.

  129. 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 !

  130. 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.

  131. 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.

  132. 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.

  133. 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.

  134. 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

  135. 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.”

  136. 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?

  137. 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.

  138. ่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

  139. 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.

  140. 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.

  141. 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.

  142. 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

  143. 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.

  144. 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.

  145. 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?.

  146. 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

  147. 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.

  148. 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!!!

  149. 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

  150. 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.

  151. 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!

  152. 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.

  153. 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

  154. 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

  155. 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.

  156. 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?

  157. Dave says:

    These are the same people that think wrestling is real

  158. 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.

  159. 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?

  160. 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?

  161. 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

  162. 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.

  163. 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?

  164. 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.

  165. 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

  166. 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.

  167. Steve says:

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

  168. 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

  169. 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.

  170. 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

  171. 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.

  172. 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?

  173. 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.

  174. 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?)

  175. 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.

  176. 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 🙂

  177. GODISMYSHADOW says:

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

  178. 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

  179. 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.

  180. 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.

  181. 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

  182. 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

  183. 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!

  184. 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.

  185. 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.

  186. 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.

  187. 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.

  188. 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

  189. 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

  190. 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.

  191. 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.

  192. 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.

  193. 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

  194. 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

  195. 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.

  196. 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!!!

  197. 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?

  198. 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.

  199. 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.

  200. 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.

  201. 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

  202. 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

    • 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

  203. 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?”

  204. 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.

  205. 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.

  206. 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.

  207. 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.

  208. 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

    • 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????

  209. 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.

  210. 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…

  211. carol sinclair says:

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

    • john edwards says: