MythBusters Episode 104: NASA Moon Landing

Air Date: August 27, 2008

Watch this episode nowWatch this episode now

This episode was based on the urban legend/conspiracy theory which claims that NASA never landed men on the moon, and instead the achievement was intentionally faked for one reason or another.

One of the NASA photos is fake because the shadows of the rocks and lunar lander are not parallel.


The Mythbusters built a small-scale replica of the lunar landing site based on the photograph, using reflective sand similar to that found on the Moon, and a single light to represent the Sun. Next, they took a photo which was exactly the same as the NASA photo, including the differing shadows. The Mythbusters explained that the shadows were not parallel because of the way the light falls on the Moon’s natural topography.

One of the NASA photos is fake because Neil Armstrong can be clearly seen while in the shadow of the lunar lander.


To test this myth, the Mythbusters built a large-scale replica of the landing site, allowing them to take a photo which was nearly identical to the original NASA photo. The Mythbusters explained that Armstrong was visible because of ambient light being reflected off of the Moon’s surface.

A flag cannot flap in a vacuum.


The Build Team placed a replica of the American flag planted on the moon into a vacuum chamber at the Marshall Space Flight Center. They first tested at normal pressure and manipulated the flag. The momentum moved the flag around but the motion quickly dissipated. In vacuum conditions, manipulating the flag caused it to flap vigorously as if it were being blown by a breeze. This demonstrated that a flag could appear to wave in a vacuum, as the Apollo flag did.

A clear footprint cannot be made in vacuum because there is no moisture to hold its shape.


The Build Team first tested whether dry or wet sand made a more distinguishable footprint by stepping in them with an astronaut boot. It was clear that the wet footprint had more detail than the dry footprint. They then placed sand similar in composition to the Moon’s soil in a vacuum chamber and stepped on it with an astronaut boot, which made a clear print. The reason provided for this was that the unique composition of lunar soil allows it to behave differently than terrestrial soil.

The film of the astronauts moonwalking is actually film of the astronauts skipping in front of a high-framerate camera, slowing down the picture and giving the illusion they are on the Moon.


Adam donned a replica NASA spacesuit and mimicked the astronauts’ motions while being filmed by a slow motion camera. They also attached Adam to wires in order to mimic the Moon’s lower gravity. While comparing their new footage with the original footage, the Mythbusters noted an initial similarity, but there were several small discrepancies attributable to filming in Earth’s gravity. In order to film in microgravity, the Mythbusters boarded a Reduced Gravity Aircraft and filmed the exact same movements. Adam noted that the movements were more comfortable and more logical in microgravity, and their footage from the plane looked exactly like the original NASA film. The Mythbusters concluded that the moon landing film is authentic.

The Apollo astronauts left behind special equipment on the Moon like reflectors that scientists can bounce lasers off of.


The Mythbusters went to an observatory equipped with a high powered laser. They first fired at the bare lunar surface but did not detect the laser bouncing back. Then they pointed the laser at a reflector left behind by NASA and received a confirmed bounce.

Watch Mythbusters episodes now


  1. Gastón:

    Hola, soy Gastón y tengo que decir que es obvio que los Mythbusters siendo Estadounidenses no van a ‘traicionar’ a su país autoproclamandose mentirosos…

    Pero las pruebas son las pruebas y muchos paises han confirmado que las fotos de la NASA son falsas.

    El problema es que ahi en EUA tienen betado el tema y aprovecharon el excelente programa de Mythbusters para poder tapar un poco la farsa, pero disculpenme pero para mi y creo que algunas otras personas no es suficiente…

    Lo lamento por los Mythbusters porque soy fan de ellos.

    Saludos dedes México.

    August 28, 2008 at 9:58 AM
  2. David:

    Perdone mi espanol malo, no es mi lengua nativa y no tengo ordernador hecho para punctuacion correcto.

    Si el gobierno estadounidense hubiera querido atacar a teorias conspiradores, habrian atacado al argumento que los ataques de 9/11 fueron hecho por el gobierno. Seria tema mas controversial y mas importante para atacar.

    En mi opinion, el gobierno ya no tiene razon para falsificar esta cosa. Ya no queda nadie del administracion Johnson o Nixon que tendria razon ser mentiroso. Los ataces de 9/11 son mucho mas ambiguos y hay preguntas mas legitimas que esto.

    August 28, 2008 at 5:48 PM
  3. Alejandro:

    How about “Zeitgeist” David? I too think the landing is a fake. But its just me. And im from Argentina :D Regards!

    August 28, 2008 at 8:17 PM
  4. donley:

    hey,u guys rock, thought i’d chime in for consideration that on the moon, the earth might cast a shine such as the moon does on earth,(pending alignment), thus an additional light source may exist to perhaps factor in on some of the photos taken by nasa. boowee.

    August 28, 2008 at 10:00 PM
  5. Circe:

    Donley – If you watch it on The Discovery Channel, you will maybe be able to understand ambient light.
    Alejandro – I hope you can watch it on TV. If so, your doubts will be destroyed. The BUSTED the myths…Get it?

    August 29, 2008 at 4:18 AM
  6. Shelley:

    Why did the segment “One of the NASA photos is fake because Neil Armstrong can be clearly seen while in the shadow of the lunar lander.” was proven “busted” when they used a replica of the moon soil that had a reflective material in it – (ingredient information provided by NASA) and then the “A clear footprint cannot be made in vacuum because there is no moisture to hold its shape. And then the ” clear footprint cannot be made in vacuum because there is no moisture to hold its shape” theory was “busted” with a different type ‘moon dust’ soil -provided ingredients from NASA, Why wasn’t the same ‘moon soil’ used for both the reflective picture and footprint? Is this because NASA came up with the ingredients for the ‘moon dust’ from their original set? And when Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon, who was holding the camera?

    August 29, 2008 at 3:17 PM
  7. Charles Pergiel:

    Regarding the laser and the reflector. It would have been a better test if you could have independently detected the relection, either by looking at the moon (would you even be able to see the reflection?) or by using your own camera or detector. Computer results provided by someone someone leses computers are inherently untrustworthy. Besides I would like to know just how much equipment you would need to detect the reflection. Could I build one? Or is going to cost thousands of dollars?

    And besides everyone (who is anyone) knows that martians in UFO’s gave our astronauts a ride to the moon.

    August 29, 2008 at 5:56 PM
  8. Mr Hanky:

    foolS, Myth is BUSTED!!

    August 29, 2008 at 8:03 PM
  9. Morlok8k:

    although i am a conspiracy theorist, i do believe that we probably went to the moon, because it would be much harder to fake it accurately then to actually go there.

    you also have to think that it would have been a waste of money to pay the hundreds of thousands of people who were employed by NASA and the other companies involved just to fake it.

    the question we should be asking is why are some of the government files about the moon classified? Nothing about the moon should be classified information.

    our moon is strange, there is nothing else like it that we have found. There is a “natural” bridge across a 12 mile crater; vapor clouds have been sighted; it sometimes has light flashes; and it appears to be hollow…

    August 30, 2008 at 8:46 PM
  10. Arlo:

    It is nuts to think that NASA could cover up faking the Moon landings. Russia has already admitted that the Soviets were spending the equivalent of billions of dollars trying to beat the United States to the Moon, and former KGB agents have admitted that they threatened to sabotage Apollo launch vehicles in order to delay the U.S. program. Why go to all of this trouble when it would be perfectly obvious to them that the U.S. was faking it and with a small bribe for some NASA employee to blow the whole hoax open to the world? The Soviets were much smarter than this, and even they admitted that the United States beat them to the Moon. The Apollo hoax conspiracy theorists really don’t have a good answer for this, at least not one not involving extraterrestrials.

    September 1, 2008 at 2:50 PM
  11. Mike:

    Hi guyies.
    Great show. I think this case is close and that the US did go to the moon. All tests looked like they were done correctly.

    September 1, 2008 at 5:10 PM
  12. brian:

    shelly what you saw of neal armstrong taking his first steps were likely a reenactment of the moment because they could not get that shot without first setting up the camera and then stepping out onto the moon. so no one was holding the camera it had been set up earlier that’s what I think there have been other intances of this in history.
    The iwo jima picture that is so iconic of the soldiers lifting the flag was a renactment as well becuase something happened to the picture taken a couple days earlier

    September 2, 2008 at 4:08 AM
  13. Arlo:

    Brian and Shelly:

    Neil Armstrong was filmed descending the ladder and stepping out onto the surface by a remote camera that was mounted on one of the lander legs and released by Armstrong by pulling a lanyard while on the ladder. You can read about this in the Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Operations Plan (from June 27, 1969, see, especially pages 15, 18 and 40. (Those are document page labels, not file page count.) Page 18 in particular shows a sketch of the setup.

    September 2, 2008 at 8:17 AM
  14. Mary:

    I am a physicist with NASA…going on 16 years now. I just wanted to say to all those still trying to discredit NASA, “shame on you”! Instead of waisting your time on trying to show we (not just NASA but the USA) didn’t go to the moon, try going to school and learning how we can go back again. Go be proud of what this country has done in its short life, and try to add something to it. Be a REAL contributor to the discoveries we are yet to make!!

    September 2, 2008 at 11:42 AM
  15. Randy:

    Although I missed this episode of MythBusters, I remember watching the moon landings as they occurred live on TV. From what I recall, after the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) set down on the lunar surface, a camera automatically deployed from the base of the spacecraft. This event occurred prior to the astronauts exiting the LEM and stepping on the moon. Once the camera was in position and adjusted, either automatically or remotely by mission control, Neil opened the LEM hatch and descended the ladder (shown on live TV) and took the first steps.

    September 3, 2008 at 8:32 AM
  16. eli:

    My father and i watch your show all the time your myth busting is so cool keep up the good work

    September 4, 2008 at 9:41 AM
  17. Jacob:

    The myth looks fake but its not good job on the myth an i loved that myth it rocks keep it up. You guys are an insperation sorry for the spelling if somethings wrong an i live in Stillwel Oklahoma just want to say you guys ROCK keep up the busting.

    September 4, 2008 at 5:32 PM
  18. Alex:

    YAY they confirmed it!!!!!

    September 6, 2008 at 2:34 AM
  19. Brendan:

    Actually from what I understand, the LEM was designed with a camera in it’s leg at a position to allow it to record the initial exit.

    September 7, 2008 at 12:25 PM
  20. Arlo:

    As I said above (September 2, 2008 at 8:17 AM), Neil Armstrong’s first step was filmed by the camera on the lander leg that he activated by pulling a cable as he started down the ladder. His exit from the lunar lander was not filmed. This is all explained in the document linked above. There was also a second camera filming through the lander window, but this was not broadcast live and didn’t actually show him exiting the lander hatch. You can watch all of these ad nauseum at

    September 9, 2008 at 10:55 AM
  21. Sir Blaze:

    It doesn’t look good for NASA when a rocket scientist doesn’t know the difference between “waisting” and wasting.

    It’s amazing that someone employed by a highly skilled agency would hire someone who cannot spell. If you’re a just NASA or United States fanatic, it would help to use spell check, instead of lowering NASA’s standards and making you seem like a liar.

    September 10, 2008 at 10:11 PM
  22. Casey:

    the myth caveman arrow, sharpened arrow or a flint arrow head? which was more deadly? I would like to know where the caveman got perfectly straight arrows???? If you test the two then make if real and carve your own arrow shafts!!!!

    September 11, 2008 at 9:30 PM
  23. Mike:

    It is easy enough to confirm. We ,the U.S. has had mapping satelites at the moon for quite some time. Turn one of the satelites on the landing site and show pictures of the Tranquility Base, the Lunar Rover, The Flag. I grew up in Missouri where the State Motto is: “Show Me”, so “Show ME”. I want to see the now space junk for which we spent millions. SHOW ME…

    September 14, 2008 at 11:07 AM
  24. Austin:

    @Sir Blaze

    Maybe Mary is a rocket scientist and she mistyped because she made a mistake like a human. You know there’s a lot of those here on planet Earth she bound to be one of them.

    September 14, 2008 at 6:26 PM
  25. Arlo:


    Pictures of the landing sites have been taken from orbit by American and other spacecraft. Here’s an example:
    Unfortunately, these mapping missions don’t really show the level of detail that most skeptics would like to see. Some upcoming missions will do better. The Terrain Mapping Camera on India’s Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft to be launched next month will have the ability to resolve features as small as 15 meters, so roughly the size of the Lunar Module (9 meters across the lander legs). The Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter Camera, launching early next year, will resolve to about 3 meters. Either of these should be capable of showing the layout of the areas explored by the astronauts as a bunch of fuzzy patches that one can compare to the published maps that one can download now. Would this be enough? Any more than this means someone needs to write a check for about $1,000,000,000.

    September 17, 2008 at 10:40 AM
  26. Mike:

    Well it only proves. Since mythbusters staged it and was able to replicate. That the original moonlanding was staged.

    September 19, 2008 at 10:36 PM
  27. Mariam Ayyash:

    I really dont care about what the US did in outer space, im more concerned about what they do on this earth! but the fact that mythbusters replicated with relatively a small budget a moon landing, NASA with a little more budget could have done the same! sadly, this confirms more than busts… not that it matters, again… but what about the flag? couldn’t artificial satellites take a new photo of it?

    September 20, 2008 at 5:45 AM
  28. Paul T.:

    My wife’s Dad, was part of the Recovery Team on the USS Hornet for Apollo 11. The letters we found, after he died, told us again, how proud he was to be part of history. So I guess that if it was faked, then we are safe to say that the your education is fake as well?

    September 24, 2008 at 12:09 AM
  29. CAL:

    @Sir Blaze
    Don’t point at the speck in someone else’s eye when you have a log in your own. Your grammar is all wrong. You used run-on sentences, extra words, and there is no such thing as a “rocket science.” I suspect you mean ROCKET PHYSICS although I wouldn’t expect a person with your education to know such things. Go find another forum to flame.

    September 24, 2008 at 11:54 AM
  30. Arlo:

    To Mike and Mariam:

    Oh! I see! Mythbusters has shown that the astronauts moved in a way that is only natural in 1/6th Earth gravity, that the flag waved in a way that it does in a vacuum, and that one needs very special soil to maintain footprints in that vacuum. If you accept that, it means NASA needed to cover a huge stage set with specially-simulated lunar soil, pump all of the air out of the building, put people inside with spacesuits, then put it all inside a giant airplane so that it can fly on a parabolic arc that gives you 1/6 g! Make sense to me! Except… if they were going to all of that trouble, PLUS launch more than a dozen 110-meter rockets in front of thousands of eyewitnesses, PLUS send spacecraft to the Moon anyway (without astronauts) so that astronomers could observe them as they did, PLUS bribe the Soviets so that they wouldn’t tell the world that they knew it was all a fake… ISN’T JUST SIMPLER AT SOME POINT TO JUST SEND PEOPLE TO LAND ON THE MOON AND BE DONE WITH IT? (Pardon my run-on sentences…)

    Any night one can walk outside and look at satellites flying overhead, including the International Space Station. If you don’t believe me, do it yourself. Why is it so hard to believe that we can put these massive structures in Earth orbit, yet we cannot send a much smaller craft to the Moon? I just don’t see how this level of skepticism is justified. I really don’t see how it is rational; maybe it isn’t.

    September 24, 2008 at 5:10 PM
  31. cams:

    So, in conclusion, Armstrong really walked on the moon?

    September 25, 2008 at 6:37 AM
  32. spider:


    September 25, 2008 at 8:13 AM
  33. Arlo:

    To spider:

    What about radiation? Does it keep people from reaching the Moon? The short answer is that a person is relatively safe as long as they stay below the Van Allen Belts, starting about 1000 kilometers above Earth (it varies) or quickly transits through them. Once outside, if the Sun erupts in a coronal mass ejection, one can still be fried. Fortunately, this did not happen during any of the Apollo lunar flights. (They were short and the Sun went through a very weak activity cycle around that time compared to what one might have expected.)
    Radiation will be a bigger problem on a trip to Mars. The Russians have been thinking about sending animal subjects on a long, distant flight to test this.

    A non-NASA page that explains much of about space radiation hazard is:

    September 25, 2008 at 10:39 AM
  34. hans anders:

    1 thing

    how could they have filmed the 1st feed on the moon (that famouse little jump)
    if it was the 1st feed?

    who placed the camera there then?
    ofc all the info about it that we see is fake they didn’t bring a camera whit them

    and nasa had to make those fake things to show russia that they where on the moon
    and that they are the best (cold war)

    September 28, 2008 at 5:03 PM
  35. April:

    hans: try reading the comments before yours. Your question about the camera has already been answered multiple times.

    October 2, 2008 at 3:29 AM
  36. Paul:

    It’s harder to imagine that they did’nt land on the moon the hole sceptic theory that they did’nt just dose not make sense for me i think with every major event throughout history there is and more than likely always will be things people dont know or cant grasp possibly because the public dos’nt know the full potential or technological advances of the goverment,So i’d say it’s not what were told that should have us sceptical but what were not and just to conclude we did land on the moon!

    October 8, 2008 at 6:06 AM
  37. Tony:

    The real conspiracy theorist can shoot holes in anything, so here goes. First of all this country killed one of its Presidents, has politicians that lie about everything under the sun including 9/11, and how we “knew nothing” about it. To think that this couldn’t be faked to make the Russians look bad is insane. 40yrs ago our technology was not what it is now, so take a picture of the landing site and “waving flag” and end it already. Oops sorry but they CANNOT!!!

    October 9, 2008 at 11:46 AM
  38. Arlo:

    To Tony -

    The Russians almost made it to the Moon with cosmonauts, having spent tens of billions of dollar worth to do so. They sent dozens of unmanned spacecraft to the Moon, including long-range rovers, that they could land within a few hundred meters of anywhere the U.S. could put astronauts. Don’t you think that the Americans would have been really, really embarrassed if when the Russians got there, they didn’t find any American hardware? The only thing worse than losing the Moon Race would have been being caught faking it. To think that the U.S. would have risked this with some hoax is the insane assertion.

    The Russians have never asserted that the Apollo landings were a hoax. They are the ones who care the most and have the most knowledge about what happened, other than the U.S. The reason, I think, that they have never done this is that they live in the same Universe as the rest of us, while Apollo hoax conspiracy theorists are intent on creating their own little world. I’m afraid that nobody is going to spend an extra billion dollars or so to send a mission to Tranquility Base or take an absurdly high-resolution picture of it just to prove to a few stubborn people what the rest of us already know. You are not that important. Next year Lunar Recon Orbiter will take some very nice pictures of all of the landing sites, given luck, but I’m sure that the conspiracy theorists will find some way around that, too.

    October 10, 2008 at 6:33 AM
  39. Arlo:

    In 1969 through 1972, the six Apollo landings missions returned some 382 kilograms of Moon rocks and soil, while three unmanned Soviet Luna sample return missions came back with 0.3 kilograms in 1970 through 1976. Soviet scientists showed that the Luna missions had identical isotope ratios and nearly identical composition to the Apollo samples, but they were radically different from Earth rocks or meteorites.

    I want to see what kind of mental pretzels the conspiracy theorists need to twist themselves into to explain that one.

    October 10, 2008 at 7:35 AM
  40. Tony:

    Arlo: While i respect your knowledge of these events, i think its a good thing that free thinking citizens of our great nation can and often do question information that is given to us.I do realize that spending a billion dollars especially now is crazy.However i don’t think a picture costs that and i will be looking forward to being proven wrong next year.

    October 13, 2008 at 10:42 AM
  41. Dena:

    After this episode I was watching the Movie Superman II and there is a scene where the bad guys stop on the moon on their way to Earth. They show astronauts on the moon and it was convincing and this was filmed in 1980, they show them walking and bouncing around. How was this done? I’m sure special effects weren’t that great in 1980. If they could do it Mythbusters should be able to re-create it.

    October 19, 2008 at 10:05 PM
  42. J:

    Not sure what makes me scratch my head more. People clinging to far fetched “myths” like faking a lunar landing or people who dismiss everything someone says because they misspelled a word.

    I think they are usually the same people. They do not act with reason, they act with artificiality (and I did not spell check that, so count me among the uneducated and dismiss everything).

    October 24, 2008 at 12:34 PM
  43. Adam:

    I’m happy with the fact that I’ll never know the truth – none of us will.
    Did the US land on the moon? Probably but possibly not! Or possibly but probably not.
    If they did – well done and if they didn’t – well done again. Actually doing it or faking it are both pretty tricky if you ask me. I think I’d have a better chance of faking it than getting there!
    I think the ‘SHOW ME’ call is a good one. But if we were shown evidence – would we still believe it???
    Some of us would – some of us wouldn’t.
    What a mind blower :-)

    October 29, 2008 at 6:39 AM
  44. Wolfgang:

    I’ve watched the show and was impressed with the effort, but after a while realized that Nasa could have facked it the same way as you did!!!
    We’ll never know if they really landed!!

    October 30, 2008 at 2:48 PM
  45. MG Bogges:

    A couple of issues that many people seem to overlook… photographic film emulsion has a melting point of around 120F…During manufacture…photographic emulsions are typically applied to the support at 160F… Roll film of all types also have trouble with extreme cold as this can cause the plastic support to break/fracture…particularly while winding…I’ve read that the special Hasselblad cameras taken to the moon had modified mechanical shutters to account for lower gravity as well as a larger shutter release button, but there is no indication that the cameras were insulated against extreme temperature variations (-180 to 250+F). It seems like a “no brainer” that the film either had to be special or the camera had thermal protection of some kind.

    How did NASA manage this obvious technical issue?

    November 9, 2008 at 5:08 PM
  46. Arlo:

    To MG Boggies:

    The Apollo landing sites and times were all picked so that the Sun was just above the horizon for the astronauts walking on the surface (see
    This way the temperatures were neither too hot nor too cold. If they had tried to explore the Moon either in the middle of lunar day or during lunar night, they would have had a lot more equipment temperature problems beyond their film not working!

    Someone needs to say, to people like Adam and Wolfgang, that the “NASA could have faked it like Mythbusters” attitude can only be maintained by those not paying attention. The way Mythbusters got realistic moon walking was with the 1/6th gravity plane ride. I really don’t see how you could use that same technique to fake astronauts running across the lunar surface from one edge of the camera’s view to another (maybe 100 meters), or riding around on a lunar rover then getting off and jumping around. What you are saying isn’t logical.

    November 13, 2008 at 5:39 PM
  47. Ben Woolgar:

    The people who don’t believe we landed on the moon are crazy

    November 19, 2008 at 6:11 PM
  48. ا¢Å®:

    Yeah I agree…

    We DID land on the moon.

    Even if we didn’t, well… hunams would be a little bit backwards.

    November 27, 2008 at 4:12 PM
  49. Liverfool:

    I hate to say this, but this particular episode is disappointing. First of all, the gang showed themselves to have already made up their minds about these myths. Second, why disprove/prove NASA myths IN NASA using they’re stuffs. That’s just pure genius.

    Busted? This whole episode is busted.

    December 2, 2008 at 4:00 AM
  50. Cross-Jab:

    I have to agree with liverfool, that episode was just wrong. And the final proof they showed was useless. Spikes in a computerized graph proves nothing. Give us a satellite shot of those mirrors in the surface of the moon, then we’ll talk.

    December 4, 2008 at 1:44 AM
  51. bob:

    they probably rigged the tests or edited it
    i mean if they found out they were faked
    do you really think they would be allowed to show it
    plus most of their tests were a load of shit and not scientific

    December 9, 2008 at 1:41 PM
  52. Sara:

    This is such a fun discussion. None of us have been to the moon so we cannot confirm nor deny anything from the soil to the lighting. As for the budget to film a fake moon landing you should find out how much the government makes and spends on war. Then you must wonder how much would they be willing to spend to be the first on the moon. I wonder which would be cheaper, going to the moon or faking it? Well, what about all those people that were there and saw the take off of the shuttle? I was not one of those people.
    If you weren’t there you cannot say either way if anything happened or not. Mythbusters is on the Discovery Channel folks. A Government funded t.v. program. It would be very foolish for the Government to go on a television show it funds and say it was fake.

    So in conclusion, none of us knows the make up of the soil of the moon. None of us have been on the moon. None of us knows what the Government is willing to do or pay in regards to being the first on the moon.

    Just remember the choice is yours to make. Come to your own conclusion.

    Do you care if we have been to the moon?

    Is the validity of what the government tells you important to you?

    Do your own research and come to your own conclusion.

    Researching is just searching repeatedly until you are satified with the outcome. Perhaps you should ask yourself how far you are willing to search for answers or are you just going to let a box in the middle of the room tell you what to think?

    December 10, 2008 at 3:13 PM
  53. Arlo:

    To Sara:

    I know this is the third time I’ve said this, but THE SOVIETS SENT HUGE NUMBERS OF SPACECRAFT TO THE MOON, AND WERE WATCHING WHAT NASA DID THERE VERY CLOSELY, TOO. Were they in on the conspiracy? The Soviets had international collaborators, who can confirm what they did (such as the French). At any time the Soviets could have blown the whole deal just by sending a simple probe to Tranquility Base, etc. Ask the French what the Soviets could do. People from many countries watched Apollo spacecraft on the way to the Moon through their own telescopes with their own eyes. SOMETHING big went to the Moon when NASA said. The Japanese recently published a photograph from the Kaguya spacecraft showing the rocket exhaust patch from Apollo 15 exactly where NASA says it should be, exactly how big it should be. Has the U.S. paid off the Japanese?

    The U.S. government does not control all information. The Soviet Union would have absolutely loved to embarrass them. Why would they possibly have passed up this opportunity, if Apollo was just a hoax? In 1969 what could the U.S. possibly have paid the Soviets to not tell the world that Apollo was a hoax? Please explain that, or stop repeating the same arguments.

    There is a limit to what even the most sophisticated and powerful human organizations can do to hide the truth, and this is beyond it, I think. Scientists exist to bring out the truth (not to mention journalists); to say that all of them are “just searching repeatedly until … satisifed with the outcome” ignores how hungry some of them are to surprise people. Remember that the most powerful man in the world was brought down by two young reporters at the Washington Post, and that all of Newtonian physics fell because of some inconsistencies in the last decimal place.

    December 12, 2008 at 3:00 PM
  54. TOM:

    I thought your episode was FANTASTIC !!! I’d love to know if could buy the small model that you built. It was really amazing !!! Keep the great shows coming. I try to never miss a single one!

    December 14, 2008 at 9:55 AM
  55. revjim:

    did we go to the moon….. yes. even the mythbusters proofed it. but did nasa “create” a few photos just incase the mission went belly up or if a photo didn’t come out right? possible

    December 14, 2008 at 10:55 AM
  56. Luis:

    Sólo la gente bruta puede creer en Zeitgest y esas películas mediocres.

    Only stupid people can believe in Zeitgest and all those crappy movies.

    Mejor pónganse a leer e informarse de verdad, y dejer de tragarse cualquier pendejada que ven.

    You should better read true books and truly informed yourself, instead of buying whatever crap you see.

    December 21, 2008 at 2:23 AM
  57. MUS.:

    I cannot believe you guys are arguing about the moon landing ( and yes I believe that Neil truly went to the moon) HA!!!!!

    December 30, 2008 at 12:16 AM
  58. Stan:

    Great Job guys, until today I was completely sure it was a hoax. But you completely changed my mind. Great show, enjoy watching every second of it, keep it up.

    January 8, 2009 at 4:25 AM
  59. JA’cada Dothera (fake):

    did we go to the moon….. yes. even the mythbusters proofed it. but did nasa “create” a few photos just incase the mission went belly up or if a photo didn’t come out right? possible

    I dont think NASA create stuff. I think the Buzz Aldrin thing was just enhanced brightness. You can’t blame somebody just for pressing that “fix” button in Picture Manager! Even the mythbusters didn’t get it THAT bright.

    January 9, 2009 at 3:34 AM
  60. solomon:

    hi is the moon landing real and when is that episode going to air

    January 20, 2009 at 11:41 AM
  61. Mooner:

    No one never went on the moon like claimed on the documentary “what happened on the moon”.
    your doc is wrong cause you used the same artefacts/lies like nasa did when they falsed the entire programs appollo. That explain why you obtain the same results with the nasa.
    If you think you’re true, explain how the problem of cosmic radiations has been solved ? And Why since appollo, no one went on the moon ? neither russians too.

    January 24, 2009 at 6:38 AM
  62. gamma:

    Perhaps NASA sent craft to the moon but i have my doubts as to whether anyone walked on it.It is possible to collect samples without walking on it…

    Something that has not yet been mentioned here:

    WHY ARE THERE NO STARS IN ANY OF THE PHOTOS? Go and look for yourself..(google it!)

    As for keeping the hoax a secret,it is widely documented fact that agencies like the CIA use hypnosis methods.Wouldn`t the astronauts believe they went?(and others?).America didn`t want to lose the race to the Russians so faked it!!Put your blind patriotism to one side for a moment.
    What good would it be using ingredients used by NASA?Or even have them involved in the experiments?Surely they will do everything possible to uphold the story…
    A good point has been made here.Why haven`t they been back since?

    Can any single one of you explain the lack of stars??

    January 24, 2009 at 10:31 AM
  63. gamma:

    Zeitgeist stupid? All facts presented relating to star constellation movements are FACT! Are you saying astronomers are stupid? They’ve only been studying it for thousands of years…

    January 24, 2009 at 10:36 AM
  64. gamma:

    ARLO !!
    Quote you: “I really don’t see how you could use that same technique to fake astronauts running across the lunar surface from one edge of the camera’s view to another (maybe 100 meters), or riding around on a lunar rover then getting off and jumping around. What you are saying isn’t logical.”

    How about if they had film of a moving landscape and had the astronauts in front of it? A b-52 would be more than large enough to house it.Pretty simple idea really.Surprising someone as smart as yourself didn`t think of that…

    January 24, 2009 at 11:17 AM
  65. Pat:

    For an explanation of why there are no stars in the photographs try While you’re there, check out a few other answers to the hokum put forward by deniers.

    January 24, 2009 at 4:13 PM
  66. Mandolin:

    Stars- There was tons of ambient light, and the sun was at the horizon. How many stars do you see at dawn? Why not? When you stand under a bright streetlight in the middle of the night, how far beyond the halo can you see? Why or why not?

    A B-52 could not accomplish the the extremely high altitude nor the required flight path (parabolic curves) to do what the “zero-g” airplanes can do.

    January 25, 2009 at 5:28 AM
  67. Mus.:

    For Mooner actually they did try again to go on the moon that was called apollo 13 and for the record how many time did we go to space I’m guessing more than once.

    January 30, 2009 at 8:32 PM
  68. Arlo:

    To gamma:

    You might be able to fake one sequence with your B-52 idea, if you could get a B-52 with wings that didn’t break off. (Good luck!) But there are so many and complex sequences like this, some of them famous, some of them not, that what you are saying will not work in detail. Google the “hippity hop” sequence that shows Gene Cernan of Apollo 17 coming way out of the distance and into the close foreground while the scene remains fixed. Even more difficult are sequences where one astronaut in the background will come forward and interact with one in the foreground (like exchange a tool) then head out of the scene. Keep in mind that there are over a hundred hours of this stuff, most of which TV viewers never even watched but you can now download anytime. A large, representative sample is at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Remember that one could only film a few minutes per “artificial gravity” flight, hence thousands of such flights would be necessary. The lunar sequences often go on continuously for hours sometime. NASA would have needed to be completely masochistic to fake a hundred hours of this stuff just to fill up an archive that nobody watched for decades. That would cost in the billions of dollars right there. Why would they possibly go to such trouble if all they were trying to do was construct a fake? I don’t see how that makes sense.

    February 2, 2009 at 10:53 AM
  69. bigjohn:

    everyone claims that the moon has 1/6 the gravity of earth and this is why the lem needed 1/6 the amount of fuel but who supplied the figure of 1/6th before anyone got there? was it an estimate with a very wide margin of error. or was someone there before that tested the gravity on the moon?would someone in there right mind land somewhere without knowing exactly how much fuel was needed to get out of there????

    February 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM
  70. bigjohn:

    why would the russians not expose a fake? they agreed to give up on such an impossible trip. 50 years later mankind still can’t go further than earth orbit. technology better 50 years ago?? probably!

    February 22, 2009 at 11:14 AM
  71. Arlo:

    To bigjohn:

    Scientists knew by the first half of the 1700s roughly what the mass of the Moon was based on tidal effects upon the Earth (and Newton’s theory of gravitation). From that it is easy to calculate the Moon’s surface gravity. This was tested by dozens of spacecraft which visited the Moon before people did, not to mention two human missions (Apollo 8 and 10) that orbited the Moon before the Apollo 11 landing.

    February 23, 2009 at 4:55 PM
  72. amanda:

    arlo: About the whole moon reports that are “classified”, is this true, just wondering because you seem like you are the most educated on this subject.

    February 28, 2009 at 6:12 PM
  73. drcrutch:

    The hammer and feather falling at the same rate in a vacuum is obvious. However, NASA used a FALCON feather–and this will fall, in regular air, at the same rate as a hammer. To bust the myth, mythbuster MUST use a Falcon feather. They did not bust this.

    March 2, 2009 at 7:48 PM
  74. Arlo:

    To amanda:

    Sorry, I’m not sure what “classified” reports you might refer to. Nothing comes to mind.

    March 3, 2009 at 4:18 PM
  75. Jeffrey A.:

    I had an opportunity to see few REAL moon rocks brought down from the moon during Apollo missions when I worked as a volunteer at the back rooms of Museum of Natural History at Smithson Ins. during my university years. As a geologist who have seen so many rocks from around the world, those rocks are not the types you can find on Earth, only on the moon. :)

    March 10, 2009 at 1:30 AM
  76. Bobo:

    Normal People,
    You are feeding the arguement by taking the tin hat crowd on. They have accomplished nothing in life, and their method feeling accomplishment is flaming out in an environment they feel the affect. Just let them live out their pathetic delusions and use your energy for something useful with results.

    March 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM
  77. Paul:

    Just watched the moon landing episode in NZ.Great stuff.
    One Question,Why could we not take photos of the moon via telescope or passing satellites to see objects left there (vehicle or flag etc).Or is it too far away.
    Great show,Keep it up
    Man on Moon 99.9%

    March 23, 2009 at 4:29 AM
  78. Bennie:

    Ok, let me get this straight, mankind can make a device that can split something you can’t even see (atom) that destroys entire cities, but can’t land a man on the moon? GTFO! Hell, we’ve sent probes out of our entire SOLAR SYSTEM (Voyager) and you think we couldn’t get somewhere much closer?

    I’m always amazed that people can say that with a straight face while using a gps device or watching satellite tv.

    March 28, 2009 at 12:33 PM
  79. mothernature:

    The fact that NASA paid them to show the episode, that only focused on 2 photos… just shows how the overwhelming evidence against them is affecting them, especially after recent footage was leaked from NASA showing how the earth photos were faked…. No one could go to the moon thats why NASA had to stop faking their moon landings to buff up the rockets… It is known that even satellites cant just go to the moon without proper preparation to counter the Van Allen Radiation Belt. The new Moon ships look like buffed up Apollo rockets, with lead shielding to allow the safe passage of humans. According to me Adam and Jamie looked awkwardly hyped up… in the other episodes they would try all other options.. and in this one they focus on 2 photos…. I have lost my respect for Mythbusters. I never had any for NASA. Space is no longer dominated by US so they have been increasingly on the defensive on this. They make it look like those for the conspiracy ate America, and those for the moon landing patriotic Americans.. and NASA nice enough to let the ride the weightless roller coaster..

    The most obvious thing about the show is that they had to place the model lander, carefully on the soil so that it looks like the ‘moon landing’. I don’t think the lander, if it really landed on the moon would land like this.. NASA forgot to fake the impact crater, implying that the astronauts were heavier than the ship itself.. You can look at the other photos on the NASA website itself…
    Anyway what they have done is just to spark debate on something that not many people knew, I even doubt the experiments they did were legit.

    March 28, 2009 at 10:36 PM
  80. jacob:

    I think the moon landing was real. The only thing I wasn’t sure about was who is holding the camera?

    March 31, 2009 at 4:39 AM
  81. Kevin:

    You conspiracy nuts are just that, NUTS. Well thank g-d Obamma is in office. He will finally expose this moon landing lie and best of all show us the UFO’s and the aliens that our government has been hiding from us all these years! The only thing I can’t figure out is who is holding the camera. :)

    April 3, 2009 at 3:18 PM
  82. Johnson SC:

    Research the following and you will have your answer

    Solar Radiation
    Astronaut Life Expectancy
    Minimal Required Hull Thickness


    April 4, 2009 at 9:19 PM
  83. not important:

    Busted on the part of motion in microgravity? WHAT?

    Sorry, but did you notice how similar the harness movement looked to the Nasa footage or the footage on the plane? It was VERY similar and only slightly differentiated by it’s speed.

    Recreate the harness experiment with the added bonus of a time-lapse camera (obviously adjust ratios of weight and time-lapse to tweak them into one fluid, recreation method) and you will get an identical Nasa footage. I can’t believe they called it BUSTED without first exploring this option, as if only a harness or only time-lapse could have been used independently.

    April 20, 2009 at 12:58 AM
  84. john:

    I’m a fairly rational guy and hardly a conspiracy theorist. But a few things stick out in my head which I have yet to hear a rational answer for.
    1. Why have we or ANYONE else for that matter, not been able to go back? The answer that there is nothing more to gain to go back strikes me as ridiculous given the amount of money we spend exploring the earth and low orbit outer space (like the space lab for instance). I read somewhere to go back now, it would take at least 10 years to develop a viable program that would take us safely BACK to the moon, when 50 years ago with limited time and comparably prehistoric technology, they were able to it with relative ease. How?
    2. Even with today’s advanced technology, we cannot get people anywhere near the Van Allen belt (nor can anyone else for that matter) yet they were able to do this 50 years ago. How possibly could the prospect of colonizing the moon not be of interest to say Russia, Japan, China and the USA? If it were possible to do so, would it not be pursued in earnest? We can’t discover a remote part of the earth without putting up a Starbucks inside a year, but we go to the moon 50 years ago in one of the most important scientific achievements in the history of man, then we along with every one else in the world just drops it?? Why wouldn’t this suggest that we don’t have the technology to do this now, let alone 50 years ago?
    3. It would not be difficult to remotely put things on the moon as sending unmanned crafts far into outer space is not an issue. So just because there are man made items on the moon, or that we have moon items here on earth does not seem like the conclusive proof that it is made out to be. Remember that this was a cold war first strike, so that making the Russians feel we had this capability was as important an accomplishment as actually getting a man on the moon. There was ample incentive to “fake” it (why we wouldn’t be called out on it to date is a reason to doubt the skeptics).

    Anyway, please don’t flame me. If someone has a reasonable response to my questions, I would be happy to reconsider my thoughts on this. Currently, I DO believe we went to the moon only because the rational explanation that they DID go is easier to swallow that this vast hoax conspiracy, but there are certain major things that don’t add up. Thanks!

    April 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM
  85. AlexS:

    I admit when I read the Hoax theories they seemed to be plausible at the first look. It is so easy to doubt everything mankind has achieved. To re-build the Pyramids would still take years and great amounts of money. And technically we are clearly in a better position now. Why has no one done that ever since? What are facts and what are not? The final prove would be me walking on the moon. But – sure – somebody could even make me believe that by hypnosis…

    To answer john’s questions to what I think (nobody “knows” anything):

    1. just because we didn’t go back doesn’t mean we weren’t able to. Still most of the oceans are undiscovered, uncounted species are waiting to be explored in the rain forests, vaccines to be found, etc. Why would it be so important to go back. I never saw any need to do it in the first place, other than propaganda. Why climb the Mount Everest? Even though the Wright brothers built a flying airplane I prefer to use the modern version with all the comfort it provides. I guess, a new moon landing would require to design many things from scratch as NASA is sending robots and probes into space nowadays and not people. A moon landing is different to a travel to a space station in earth’s orbit. Or would you honestly just build a replica of the Apollo spaceships and use the old technology? Again why risk human life when you don’t need to?

    2. I couldn’t find any scientific article stating that passing the Van Allen belt is lethal for space travelers in a radiation shielded space craft. Where is the evidence for that? Just because the cancer risk goes up doesn’t stop people from smoking either.

    3. I agree with you on that point

    I like to question many things, too. But while I understand the concepts of a PC, phone, internet, car, etc. I could not design and construct one myself. Hence, I have to believe some can.

    April 21, 2009 at 2:51 PM
  86. Vuyani Kwitshana:

    We will never find out. Thats how conspiracy works. The truth will always be left to the imagination. Its sad but thats reality.

    April 28, 2009 at 5:04 AM
  87. Ted:

    I think we should take the smarter-than-thou, smug conspiracy theorists (none of whom has a degree in aeronautics or physics) on here and blast them all to the Sea of Tranquility and then they can report back to us with their final breaths what they see on the lunar surface.

    May 3, 2009 at 5:04 PM
  88. Geo:

    Simply put, if they could do it all that time ago now. Why do we not seem to have been able to repeat it since? All we have recently is some crap footage of a little machine being followed around by a camera on “Mars.”

    I have a feeling that this episode probably got them a good sum of funding to help re-cover-up since a lot of people are able to look at it with a more educated view these days and realize what a load of crap it was.

    May 10, 2009 at 10:40 PM
  89. Brian:

    From what I’ve seen there is still a big doubt that man ever walked on the moon.

    Hoaxes can be created quite easily as many other Hollywood sci-fi movies show quite well. They’ve fooled a lot of cinema goers for a long while.

    Everything can be created and as a photographer, I know that with a little help from ‘Photoshop’ I know many of these things are possible. But some things just cannot be created with tricks, filters or software.

    So, until there we see 100% proof I will treat it the same as the Loch Ness Monster and UFO’s.
    If you think otherwise then it shows just how easy it is to fool a lot of people.
    (Excuse the spelling – I’m English!)

    May 11, 2009 at 3:48 PM
  90. Brian:

    Also, There are a couple of pictures using the same background, hills, craters etc. In one picture there is the lunar lander, but in the other there is no trace, or even marks in the soil (that doesn’t blow away.)

    It certainly looks like a film set to me, with sloppy editing. No wonder ‘area 51′ is so well guarded, it’s a film set……

    May 17, 2009 at 3:19 AM
  91. moshbox radio:

    The Naked Conspiracy took this to the next level :D

    June 11, 2009 at 11:59 PM
  92. myname:

    The Mythbusters synopsis is incorrect. The photo of astronaut descending the leg of the LEM is Aldren, not Armstrong.

    Anyone who has watched TV or movies of scenes shot outdoors should know that reflectors are commonly used to fill in shadows. The moon’s surface is such a reflector.

    This would have had to have been a huge conspiracy as NASA relied on a global infrastructure. Worldwide tracking stations, recovery teams, etc. The sheer number of people who would have had to have been involved in this conspiracy would have collapsed the ruse by now.

    Personally, I feel the conspiracy theory does a great disservice to the families of both American and Soviet astronauts killed in the pursuit of manned spaceflight. Try telling any vet their comrades died in vain.

    June 16, 2009 at 12:56 PM
  93. Brian:

    Massive conspiracies can be created of course and this isn’t the first one.

    The US motion picture industry is world class of course, and they’ve had many years of fooling the public.

    Anything can be created and with the amount of evidence about it looks like this scenario is top of the list.

    JFK promised that man would walk on the moon and they certainly did, but the moon in question was on a film set, probably secreted in or around area 51.

    There are just too many variables to convince me.

    (Old England)

    June 20, 2009 at 2:54 AM
  94. Steven McNealy:

    The suface of the moon has been visited numerous times, by the U.S. unmanned 1959-1968 of what I count to 17 times ( ) and one unknown because of lost radio contact, by the U.S. manned six times 1969-1972, by the Soviet Union unmanned eleven times 1959-1976 and by India unmanned once (crasch landning 14 November 2008). I have included unplanned crashes and other failures as long as the moon’s surface has been reached. Also, the moon’s suface has been driven on for several tens of miles, and considerable amounts of material (842 pounds of dust and rocks just by the manned U.S. landings) has been collected and been taken back to earth. A total of 12 people have visited the moon (all Americans) and spend a total of 11,5 days on the surface of the moon. That there are still people who seriously believe that moon hasn’t been visited is just tragic and comical. I have myself studied at Purdue University which houses a piece of material from the moon, and which has alumni who has walked on the surface of the moon.

    June 21, 2009 at 7:54 PM
  95. Arlo:

    I know I’ve said this already, but here it goes again:

    To those of you who imagine a conspiracy to generate some massive Apollo hoax, please ask yourself – were the Soviets involved in the hoax? The Soviets spent the equivalent of many billions of dollars making rockets that were just as big as America’s in a failed attempt to put humans on the Moon. They tried “cloak and dagger” operations to frustrate NASA, and they sent special missions to the Moon just to try to upstage the Americans (look up “Luna 15″ on wikipedia, for instance). But one thing they NEVER did was accuse the Americans of faking the Apollo Moon landings. (The Soviets did cover up their own Moon landing efforts when it became apparent that they would lose, but they NEVER went into the fantasy land of claiming that Apollo was a fake, despite all of the efforts of the Soviet aerospace industry, the military, and the KGB.)

    How is it that the people who claim that Apollo was a fake know more, are smarter, and care more about embarrassing NASA/America than the military-industrial complex of the Soviet Union?

    Can you agree that the Apollo hoax hypothesis just doesn’t make sense politically, despite what you think or don’t think about the technical issues?

    June 24, 2009 at 1:38 PM
  96. YousuF:

    NASA has faked the moon landing……in the myth when they were proving about the movie that it was slow down to half its speed…..everyone know that the gravity is 1/6 of the earth so ppl at NASA weren’t dump enough to slow it down to half of its speed but they slowed down to 1/6 of their speed…..and when they were proving the flag part…..even if we accept that the neil moved the flag then it wouldn’t have moved so fast…..mythbuster replicated in a place where the value of g is 9.8m/s where as on the moon its 1/6 of it but they both seem to move in the same speed… is that possible?……and still people who believe that we have landed on moon….just go to youtube and search moon landing hoax……there you will find Kissinger,Hague and rumsfeld accepting that we fake it along with nixon’s secetary

    June 30, 2009 at 3:02 PM
  97. Arlo:

    To YousuF:

    The “Dark Side of the Moon” video you refer to with Kissinger, Haig and Rumsfeld is a mockumentary, a joke.

    How ridiculous this is getting…

    June 30, 2009 at 5:51 PM
  98. Max:

    About the laser reflector left on the Moon – how does it work so that a laser emmitted here can be received in the same vicinity without significant deflection? Obviously, if the mirror is flat, it can’t be done, since the it would have to be at a perfect right angle to the incoming beam. But even if it is parabolic, just beaming the laser and hoping it will get back would also be hard, because you would still need to search for a point on the mirror that is at the perfect right angle to the incoming beam. It could take a lot of time to find such a point, no?

    Can anyone tell how the thing works?

    July 1, 2009 at 1:44 PM
  99. Max:

    I think I have an answer to my own question – the beam spot on the Moon is large, and covers the whole deflector, and a small portion of the beam will be deflected at 180 degrees back to the emmitter.

    July 1, 2009 at 1:50 PM
  100. Tarek:

    We allknow it was a political thing.
    So its probably a mix of half truths.
    Maybe no one landed on that date. The US could not afford to gamble. It was faked to guarantee beating Russia. Either robot landers dropped the laser reflector, and took some pictures, maybe even get some moon rock. If they did land a man, it was probably later. Some of the pictures and the videos are definate hollywood fakes.

    July 10, 2009 at 3:13 PM
  101. Dave:

    What a bunch of paranoid morons you conspiracy theorists are. I am surprised to see such blatantly
    idotic theories-put your analytsxt on danger money.
    It is quite clear to any intelligent observer that the landings did take place.

    July 14, 2009 at 10:59 PM
  102. Seriously:

    Its amazing to me how conspiracy theorists crowd around a couple of photos analyzing them to death, repeat bogus psuedo-scientific rumors as if they were some kind of expert (“Oh… the Van Allen Belt would kill you!”), or parrot some other nonsense logic (“Oh… the U.S. wanted to proove they were better than Russia, so they faked it!”, or “The CIA uses hypnosis, so they faked it!”, or “They haven’t gone back yet, so that must mean they couldn’t and therefore faked it!”, or my personal favorite “There are ways you can fake it, so they faked it!”) as proof that it was all some hoax. All the while, they refuse to read any website or posting that soundly and scientifically destroys the hoax argument.

    Its not like its hard to find. The proof that the hoax arguments are garbage is everywhere available on the net even to those with only basic internet skills. And, yet there are people here who refuse to even read the previous comments to theirs that soundly answer the very questions and arguments they are making. If you do take notice and actually get off your bum and look at the responses to the hoax believers that are available on sound, non-emotional, fact-based websites you will also notice another amazing phenomena… all the space-related scientists believe the Moon Landing was real. What about the job-descriptions of the purveyors of the hoax theory? See any respected professors of astrophysics or astronautical engineering among them? How about any respected leaders in the Aerospace Industry? How many working Aerospace Engineers do you personally know that believe the moon landing was faked or couldn’t have been done? There are far more of them that don’t work for NASA then those who do!

    Its obvious what’s going on here. The only fact that conspiracy theorists have prooven is that they are obsessesed with believing the conspiracy. Whether its because they hate the U.S., or are too lazy to do some basic searching on the other viewpoint, or because some hoax believer who was also someone they respected filled them with BS and made them emotionally invested in the belief, they have come to the point where they aren’t searching for the truth anymore. They just won’t believe anything else. Its like a frickin’ religion to these people.

    LALALALAL…its a hoax!….LALALLALA…oh you are just some poor American-loving sap worshipping the establisment!….LALALALALALA

    July 16, 2009 at 6:56 PM
  103. Brian:

    The previous poster reminded me of Jehovah witnesses at my front door. No matter how hard you try you just can’t convince them of any alternative to their doctrine. They are blind to the truth, the facts, and to any logical reasoning.

    I don’t believe the hoax theory in any malicious way at all, but evidence provided makes me have many doubts about the authenticity of man on the moon.
    I believe American equipment has been on the moon, and even returned to earth with the odd rock, (what else is there?) but evidence of attached humans is not convincing enough for me,and many others.

    I’m not out to denigrate US science and technology, but I’m also a sci-fi fan who is fooled by the fantastic productions from Hollywood.
    Maybe we’ve all been fooled, but some will never admit to it no matter how convincing the evidence is?

    July 17, 2009 at 6:18 AM
  104. Brian:

    Why is it that where they landed we cannot see any evidence that was left behind like the flag, tire tracks, garbage, reflectors, etc.? Telescopes that can view other systems should clearly be able to view this stuff. I’ve never seen any footage or pics of this stuff left behind. Wouldn’t this proof surely relieve any doubt? I believe it would for me.

    July 17, 2009 at 8:48 AM
  105. ZD:

    Why cant the Hubble snap a few photos of the moon where Apollo landed;it can snap photos of solar systems light years away, but not so much of the moon, C’mon!!!

    July 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM
  106. JC:

    If I’m not mistaken, there were six manned missions to the moon over a 3 year period. It is one thing to claim that the US faked one mission. It is a bit harder to claim that they supposedly faked six moon landings.

    You would think that if NASA had gotten away with one hoax, they should have been satisfied. But instead they decided to fake five more. And we are to believe that the Soviets kept quiet about all six faked moon landings.

    July 17, 2009 at 1:47 PM
  107. JC:

    Brian and ZD:

    The resolution of the Hubble telescope prevents it from zooming in on objects smaller than 27m in diameter. There is an orbiter currently mapping the moon that should be able to photograph the landing site.

    July 17, 2009 at 1:49 PM
  108. unbelieveable:

    I’ve just read this entire thread. Its amazing to me the repetitive, ignorant arguements/statements people continue to make.
    ZD, why should hubble scientists waste time and money photographing apollo left-overs on the moon to prove something 90% of US already KNOW happened and when there is much more exciting and worthwhile things to photograph with hubble.
    The burden of proof lies with the conspiracy theorists. I’ve not read too much regarding “how” it was “faked” but I don’t need to because I’m certain it wasn’t.
    Arlo’s arguement regarding the fact that the soviets, more than anyone, would want to prove this was a hoax has not been addressed 1 single time in this entire thread and really says alot. They soviets, no Russians, would have been all over this if it were even close to being faked. They were close to landing on the moon themselves so they knew it was possible and knew it wasn’t faked.

    Here’s another thought. Six apollo missions (Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17) achieved their goal of landing men on the moon. The six missions that landed on the Moon returned a wealth of scientific data and almost 400 kilograms of lunar samples. Experiments included soil mechanics, meteoroids, seismic, heat flow, lunar ranging, magnetic fields, and solar wind experiments.
    So are we suggesting ALL of these missions, all of their photographs and scientific data acquired are faked and part of a, imagine the scale, massive cover up?
    Its almost not possible for me to fathom the amount of time, money (RISK IN GETTING CAUGHT and fallout from that) NASA and the US government would would spend in order to pull this off if it were a hoax. We made it to the moon, unmanned.
    Clearly, obviously.
    So why would we fake the mann’d part?
    To say we did it? To beat the Soviets?
    What reason would we have to wast massive amounts of resources beyond these? Would we really have gone thru ALL it takes to create a hoax on this level for the purpose of being the first to walk the moon? Again, imagine the scale. Launching Saturn Rockets, splashdown recovery, not to mention hours upon hours of lunar footage that would have to be faked over a period of 4 years. Not to mention being able to keep it a secret for EVER. Would NASA/US government risk that alone?
    If we didn’t walk the moon 6 TIMES!! Don’t you think it would have been disproven for certainty by now? Don’t you think it would be a conspiracy FACT now instead of a “theory”?
    Why 50 years later is it still only a thoeory that it was faked?
    How come Russia hasn’t hopped on board this theory?
    Because its INSANE!!!
    It would be embarrassing for a country to claim this was faked because it so obviously was not for a massive number of reasons.
    If one takes the time to analyzie all the data, physical, scientific and anecdotal, its clearly, obviously not a hoax. Straight up with 0 doubts.

    There is too much evidence to support the reality of it then there is to support it was faked.
    There really is no “evidence” to support it was faked. I see just a bunch of questions that can be asked?
    Why can’t we take a picture of the flag on the moon?
    Why are there no stars?
    Why haven’t wee been back?
    Why are the shadows not right in the photographs?
    etc etc
    Show me some evidence rather than ask questions.
    The moon is right there. How hard is it to believe, beyond all the existing evidence, that we could land on it and walk around? Is it really that hard to believe?
    Why is it so hard to believe?
    Open your minds people who don’t believe.
    Its sad to think people are so ignorant.
    But, this falls in line with all the people who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old because it says so in a book.
    There’s a lot of “evidence” to prove that too.
    We landed and walked on the moon 6 times, and we will do it again. Just a matter of time.

    July 17, 2009 at 2:17 PM
  109. greg:

    JC, dont waste your breath.. the hoax believers will just say that the new images are fakes just to cover the fake landing.. that brought back the fake moon rocks

    July 17, 2009 at 2:38 PM
  110. berry:

    Conspiracy theorist is those people who envy to be in the spotlight. My advice is to not paying any attention to them to feed their egos. We should all think individually and use common sense.

    July 17, 2009 at 3:22 PM
  111. unbelieveable:

    all you conspiracy theorist followers.
    check this link out.

    I challenge anyone to find a single piece of evidence that cannot be refuted in some way.
    I imagine there aren’t any because we landed on the moon.

    I really like the rover point regarding the dust from the wheel rising and falling in a perfect parabolic arc. This would only happen in a low gravity vacuum.
    Hmm, so HBs (hoax backers) are suggesting a complex set, flying in a parabolic curve inside an airplane, with all the air pumped out of it.
    People, give it up. Use logic and listen to the arguments present against the “evidence” supporting faked apollo missions (6 of em) and you will see there is no concrete evidence supporting a hoax.
    I ask again, why is it so hard to believe we landed on the moon. Its right there.

    July 17, 2009 at 4:00 PM
  112. Arlo:

    Back on September 17 and October 10, 2008 in this thread I promised that Lunar Recon Orbiter would take pictures that should the Apollo lunar modules and other hardware on the Moon’s surface. Here they are:

    Now, I know this was a NASA spacecraft, but the people responsible for the photos don’t work for NASA. Not that I expect that to satisfy some people…

    July 17, 2009 at 4:46 PM
  113. godsdog:

    back in 2007 the japanese sent a rocket into orbit around the moon(kaguya) at the time they said it would be able to photograph american hardware on the moon.
    i’m still waiting to see these pictures.taps watch

    July 17, 2009 at 5:13 PM
  114. Ally:

    So why have we never been back in over 40 years? We have so much technology now! The mythbusters didn’t change my opinion that it was a hoax!

    July 17, 2009 at 6:05 PM
  115. Ally:

    Oh, and now they supposedly taped over the original landing, how interesting! One of the most important moments in history!

    July 17, 2009 at 6:06 PM
  116. unbelieveable:

    The comments get more ridiculous.
    Why should we have gone back in over 40 years?
    For what purpose should we spend billions of dollars?
    Just to prove it wasn’t a hoax the first time when there is already plenty of proof it wasn’t.
    Show me some evidence to support the claims it was a hoax?

    July 17, 2009 at 6:22 PM
  117. JC:


    Manned moon missions are hugely expensive. The only reason we even went in 1969 was to beat the Russians. There is little political interest and most Americans don’t think spending on space is a priority. The country is trillions in debt after all.

    There have been massive cuts in NASA’s budget. They are having a hard enough time paying for a replacement for the space shuttle.

    July 17, 2009 at 6:25 PM
  118. GJB:

    Seriously, every time someone tries this rubbish on, I just tell them to go point a laser at the corner reflector. It’s still there. It’s real evidence. Why not make it a school project so the next generation can be a bit better educated?

    The real myth associated with the lunar landing is that it was as DIFFICULT as they make out. What’s the big deal? Strap some whopping great rockets on a metal box, throw in some guys with an oxygen tank and point it at the freakin moon…

    Not exactly huge in the scheme of human achievement IMHO. The computer you are now sitting in front of, now that’s impressive.

    I’m a big believer in a few of the real large scale conspiracies that HAVE occured, but this isn’t one of them, it’s just too easy to do for real, why would you bother faking it?

    Before the advent of CGI I never once saw a zero-G or low-G effect in a movie that was realistic. A couple came close, but even 20 years after the actual landing Hollywood still couldn’t fake it with all the wirelines and hi-speed cameras money could buy.

    July 18, 2009 at 9:09 AM
  119. GJB:

    Just found this interesting quote:

    “The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.”
    — Dr. James Van Allen

    Yeah, that’s the guy who discovered the Van Allen Belt ROTF

    July 18, 2009 at 9:32 AM
  120. Diane:

    Apollo 11 and everything about that project were very real. There are many of us who had family members who created and installed the many computers and parts that made it all happen. My own father was a rubber chemist at the time and he had a critical part in one of the retro rockets that had to fire in order for the crew to come home once they had gotten hooked up again. he was so relieved when it worked.

    July 18, 2009 at 1:25 PM
  121. Stu:

    It is really sad that the conspiracy theorists didn’t take advantage of the educational system. Instead of learning physics and taking an interest or actually become involved in a NASA program, they just sit outside and throw rocks like cavemen. I guess it is vogue to tear down a great nation that accomplished great things because some people can’t understand and accept that they are wasting their lives.

    Do something positive instead of tearing the accomplishments of others down.

    In other words, get a life.

    July 18, 2009 at 7:02 PM
  122. Contact:

    I think the phrase back in the 60’s from NASA was “if we can’t make it, fake it”.
    So what if we faked it. It impressed the USSR and the rest of the world that we are the best.

    July 18, 2009 at 9:47 PM
  123. Evidence:

    (Taken July 2009 from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.) Believe it now?

    July 19, 2009 at 12:25 AM
  124. unbelievable:

    I think its funny, alot of conspiracy theorists would say “where’s a photo?”
    “how come there is no photo?”
    Well, now that there is, they’ll say, “its doctored”
    “Its photo-shop”
    those who don’t want to beleive won’t when all the evidence is staring them in the face and all
    EVERY SINGLE argument pointing at a hoax has been clearly refuted. Still they don’t believe.

    Good point GJB, is it really THAT HARD to get to the moon and walk on it.
    I mean c’mon.
    Its sad people refuse to take pleasure in this wonderful human acheivement and would rather believe its faked based on…
    nothing concrete, absoltely no concrete evidence,
    than be amazed that people actually walked on the moon.
    I look up at the full moon sometimes and am amazed at that thought today.
    You conspiracy theorists in your blind, close minded beliefs are missing out on life.
    Wake up and enjoy reality.
    or don’t, I don’t care really.

    July 19, 2009 at 12:30 AM
  125. Contact:

    Think about this, if we can go past the Van Allen belt, why don’t we ever go out a few thousand miles or 100k miles or 1 million miles into space to see what it’s like? Because we can’t. The radiation would kill us.

    July 19, 2009 at 1:19 AM
  126. Druhm:

    Those thinking the Moon Landings never happened are just ignorant, refusing to see the facts. They likely NEVER will believe it happened unless they themselves landed on the moon. It may be too hard for them to believe that the astronauts actually used their brains, slide rules, astrophysics and only used the computers to direct the ship.

    It is amazing to think the computers they used were so small in power and ability compared to the computers we use today.

    To you conspiracy theorists, go ahead and live in your own little world of reality, while the rest of us celebrate and enjoy the one of humanity’s greatest achievements!

    July 19, 2009 at 1:43 AM
  127. Brian:

    You are so blinkered Druhm. Open your mind and compare the facts and figures and you too would see that there is something strange about this saga.

    It is possible that craft landed on the moon, and left items for experiments like laser reflectors etc. They could also bring back rocks too. But whether man actually landed on the moon is somewhat debatable.

    July 19, 2009 at 2:50 AM
  128. Uncle Sham:

    how the media will make anything that smacks of “conspiracy theory” an immediate “object of ridicule.” This prevents the media from ever having to investigate the many strange interconnections among the ruling class — for example, the relationship between the boards of directors of media giants, and the energy, banking and defense industries. These unmentionable topics are usually treated with what Blum calls “the media’s most effective tool — silence.” But in case somebody’s asking questions, all you have to do is say, “conspiracy theory,” and any allegation instantly becomes too frivolous to merit serious attention. On the other hand, since my paranoid shift, whenever I hear the words “conspiracy theory” (which seems more often, lately) it usually means someone is getting too close to the truth.”

    July 19, 2009 at 5:27 AM
  129. Hole truth:

    When two or more people plan to commit a crime, there exists by definition a ‘conspiracy’.

    Therefore, any theory about who did it, or how it was done, is by definition a ‘conspiracy theory’.

    The question is then not whether you are a conspiracy theorist, but for which conspiracy theory you find the evidence most compelling.

    July 19, 2009 at 5:34 AM
  130. xray:

    some of the pics are defn fake, also how come the video shows neil coming down, but the moon horizon is clearly visible through his body!

    July 19, 2009 at 10:21 AM
  131. X-Ray:

    how come the video shows neil coming down the ladder, but you can clearly see the moons horizon through him, ie he is transparent !

    Some of the images are probably fake, because they needed clear photogenic images for the publicity, and the images from the hasleblad were not good enough

    July 19, 2009 at 10:29 AM
  132. brains:

    Don’t even bother with the conspiracy theorists. They’re just mentally challenged folks with low self esteem.

    July 19, 2009 at 6:13 PM
  133. wires:

    I see what you mean xray, why was that, s like its a cheap overlay or something. The videos and pics are certain hollywood special effects. Just look when one of them astronaughts gets up, the wires pull him up, its impossoble to get up like that even on 1/6th gravity. Then on another one, you actuallly see the wires for a brief moment.

    July 20, 2009 at 2:11 AM
  134. Why Go Back?:

    ….surely there would be a military strategic advantage from having a permanent base on the moon? I am surprised they have not “been back” in 40 years, and that no one else has sent a manned mission to the moon. Also, why did US need to send 6 manned missions to the moon – I mean did they not manage to collect enough rocks on the first one?
    Don’t tell me, 9/11 was NOT an inside job, JFK was shot by a lone nutjob and Japan bombed Pearl Harbour.

    July 20, 2009 at 6:57 AM
  135. David:

    Great show,

    One little inaccuracy. Sorry, just had to. Jamie holds up a little toy astronaut and says it’s Neil Armstrong and that you can tell by the red stripe on the arms and helmet.

    Sorry the commanders stripes were only introduced on apollo 13 after apollo 11 and 12 they could;nt tell who was who.


    July 20, 2009 at 7:35 AM
  136. danniee:

    well there are somethings i believe about the
    moon landing, but think about it. they sent those men in 1969, our space technology and intelligence has got to be greater now, than it was 40 years ago. so why have they not sent teams to the moon multiple times already?

    July 20, 2009 at 8:03 AM
  137. Reasonable:

    Arlo: I’m glad that you are a reasonable person but it’s useless to try to explain these things to people who are already convinced of their ideas. It’s important to have those in society who question the information that’s given to them, but being closed minded in your convictions is counter-productive to questioning authority. The most important thing is to be reasonable. Conspiracy theorists: read a book that was subjected to scientific review.

    July 20, 2009 at 8:16 AM
  138. Spock:

    Moon landing was faked.
    Earth is flat.
    Cigarettes don’t harm health.
    And I have a bridge to sell you.


    July 20, 2009 at 8:26 AM
  139. Consider this:

    Now did you really think that the Mythbusters crew was really gonna come out and say that the moon landing was a forgery? a fraud? a fake? Really? You thought they might? LOL!

    July 20, 2009 at 8:31 AM
  140. Reb:

    I wonder of all the people who doubt we went
    to the moon.Have you ever witnessed a launch!!

    July 20, 2009 at 8:31 AM
  141. erin:

    I think it’s absolutely hilarious that Mary the “physicist” with NASA can’t even use the correct version of the word waste.

    July 20, 2009 at 9:45 AM
  142. Sarah:

    It’s amazing that after 40 years people still believe that US astronauts didn’t travel to the moon & back. As for Mary’s spelling issue, do all of you use spell check before submitting a comment? Anyway, my problem has always been with the JFK shooting. I am a biologist & can’t figure out how 1 bullet can hit bones & be whole when found (JFK’s skull & Gov. Connally’s wrist).

    July 20, 2009 at 10:20 AM
  143. elrom:

    I really sorry but to me this is very simple….the US goverment is a lier for exelence – just for those guys that still insist that that is no point of maintain this possible fake…Im not sure how false this is…but Im pretty sure that somethig is not all true in this event….
    just see your history….remember how G.Bush lie to you guys and how you actual leader just hired its contender….cmon…. its time that you guys start to wake up and foget your nonsense nationalism that is destroing everythig even yourselfs….
    my best regards.

    July 20, 2009 at 10:36 AM
  144. LA:

    The apparent ignorance of everyone who thinks this is a hoax is obvious. Take some physics and astronomy courses before making accusations. I currently work for NASA and we will be back on moon by 2020. If only everyone truly knew and understood the expense and engineering it takes to build a spacecraft, they would not question why we haven’t been back. Anyone heard of the International Space Station? We were focused on other priorities. It really amuses me to see the smoke rise from the heads of the ignorant because they are incapable of understanding things of a scientific nature. Wait and see what happens over the next 5-10 years…then we’ll talk!

    July 20, 2009 at 3:30 PM
  145. David:

    Tests can be altered to result in specific findings. You couldn’t prove the landing 40 years ago and you still can’t prove it now. so tonoght look up and realize that the government shafted us again!

    July 20, 2009 at 3:44 PM
  146. Winston Smith:

    @[email protected]:


    This is your life’s work I can understand why you would be defensive. Just understand that the American people have been ripped off and lied to by our own Government for so long it’s hard to believe anything they say. Frankly, it’s so Orwellian it scares the bejesus out of me.

    I also used to believe the moon landing was fake because if the Government told me it happened then there had to be more to the story…or less. The moon landing in 1969 came at the height of the cold war. What better way to intimidate your enemy than to have the PERCEIVED capability to “shoot” at them from the moon. To me, that was all the justification we needed to fake a moon landing.

    As for being proud of this country and it’s achievements and looking to the future . This country’s best days are gone and I’m getting out as soon as I can. Just take a look around, WE are a crop to be harvested for our cash.

    I mean no disrespect. What you and others do could ultimately save our civilization and even the planet. I have enormous respect for you and your peers.

    Keep doing what you’re doing and know you have my full support which is worth zero, nada, zip.

    July 20, 2009 at 3:54 PM
  147. Sarah:

    You know, I’ve lived in another country & I can tell you that there’s no place like the good old USA. Continue to read the history of other countries, not just what you’ve heard from others. I’m 60 years old & this is the best place on earth. If it weren’t why would others want to leave their homelands & become citizens of the USA? Yes, no President here has ever been perfect, but how many dictators have told their countrymen the full truth about anything? Now I’m not saying, “America, love it or leave it,” but it is better than what I’ve seen elsewhere. Plus, how many countries told the US that there would be monetary compensation for help of any type, then refused to pay the “ugly Americans?” If you or I refused to pay our legal bills, how long would it be before the collectors came knocking at our doors? No, my young friends, the moon landing really happened, the world is round, the sun is the center of our part of outer space & NASA has helped prove some of Einstein’s theories. Look into it for yourselves. Kennedy Space Center in Florida has all sorts of info, space modules, launch sites & they love questions from any of us so they can prove their knowledge & earn their paychecks. Perhaps one of you doubting Thomases will be the next on the space craft to take off from the desert launch site in the USA! (How did they learn to fly into space or have we been deceived by another group?) Or perhaps your children will attend Space Camp! Good luck to you all.

    July 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM
  148. Sarah:

    Now, children. I am 60 years old & NASA sent astronauts to the moon & brought them back. All you have to do is your own research, which has been suggested. Know any high school physics teachers? Ask them to help you with the research. Visit Kennedy Space Center or Space Camp. The people there are very knowledgeable & love to talk about what happens or has happened there. Don’t just listen to others & jump on their bandwagon, find out for yourselves that the earth is round, the moon circles the earth & the sun is the center of our part of outer space.

    July 20, 2009 at 4:38 PM
  149. Winston Smith:


    Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your input and respect your opinion whether I agree with it or not. That particular sentiment has been somewhat lacking in this thread.

    I am educated and a retired communications engineer from a fortune 50 multinational technology firm. While I am admittedly not a physicist, I do believe I understand why so many GOOD people believe in these kinds of things:

    The previously mentioned lone gunman theory, JFK. IMHO, anybody that believes Oswald acted alone should be neutered.

    The Gulf of Tonkin, We were not fired on as reported. It was fireworks. LBJ got his war.

    The CIA providing tons of cocaine to blacks in east LA see “Freeway Ricky Roberts” It helped fund the war in Nicaraugua.

    Our government has a long history of deceiving it’s own people and it actually goes way beyond that because some of these lies have cost over a million innocent lives.

    These GOOD people are doing what all of us should be doing now and that is questioning authority, questioning assumptions, but most of all and most importantly, questioning what we’ve been told.
    It’s not important what I believe. The only important thing is, what do I do about what I believe.

    I’ve seen some very rude comments coming from both sides of this argument. To me, these are the people with no credibility despite whatever credentials they may have. Their anger and petty insults show their desperation to convince someone else that there might be another explanation and sway them to their own side of the argument. Funny huh!

    Lastly, I haven’t checked the Bill of Rights O’ Meter today to see what I’ve lost this week, but last I checked we still had freedom of speech. So let’s stop attacking each other and simply exchange ideas.

    July 20, 2009 at 5:11 PM
  150. Thomas:

    I first use to believe that we landed on the moon, that was when I use to believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. Now that I’m older I make my own evaluations with facts and common sense. First off, before we send someone out to orbit we must have the right weather and vertical angle. Secondly we need a huge rocket and a launch pad to just shoot out to orbit. Now if we did landed on the moon, how do we have a launch pad, enough fuel, and rocket booster to send us back to earth’s orbit? I’ve drove to the Kennedy space center and saw how big and how much it would take to send someone out to space. Wouldn’t it take the same effort if not more to send someone back from the moon? this is just like a Ponzi Scheme and everyone just got tricked. maybe people back then are very gullible with everyone they see. hahahaha…

    July 20, 2009 at 5:12 PM
  151. David:

    I say we let them believe it’s fake. We all need a good laugh every now and then. Plus, for me, it’s just a reminder that there are plenty of people dumber than me. :)

    July 20, 2009 at 6:21 PM
  152. unbelievable:


    “Wouldn’t it take the same effort if not more to send someone back from the moon?”

    I’m sure I’m not the first to answer this, but think. moon 1/6th of Earth’s gravity.
    So why would it take the same or more to escape 1/6th of earths gravity and propel onself in a space craft back to earth?
    Silly question really if you think about it.
    And have you ever seen a Saturn V rocket launch?
    the scale of that beast blows the mind.
    Clearly, an amazing effort to escape Earth’s gravitational pull and reach the moon.

    good points.
    we should always question the government. its sad that the history of some of our government’s actions has caused such a mistrust in its people.
    However, the USA is still a great place to live.
    and we did land on the moon and walked on it 6 different times.
    People don’t believe but do no research to answer their silly questions, like
    Wouldn’t it take the same effort if not more to send someone back from the moon?

    I’m tired of this argument but keep coming back to this thread to see if people will finally get to the facts rather then ask silly questions with no real thought processes behind them.

    Watching Neil descend the ladder and hearing that famous line delivered after he set foot on the moon still brings chills to me. Its so damn amazing. I wish more people who don’t believe would/could find the way to the truth. The way is there, you just have to research and open your mind and get off the “our government always lies to us” band wagon. This time they didn’t lie to us.
    Its too obvious they didn’t.

    July 20, 2009 at 6:35 PM
  153. Paul:

    And I suppose countries like India (and others) that have satellites orbiting the moon that have picked up pictures of SIX (not just one moon landing but 6!) moon landings equipment left etc. WOW that’s a widespread conspiracy :-)

    July 20, 2009 at 7:26 PM
  154. Frank:

    Yes, we went there and returned. But I think the videos of what we did there were faked.

    There could be any number of reasons for this. Maybe the video sent from the moon was garbled or unusable. Or, more likely, we did or saw things there that we did not want to release a public record of. Keep in mind that the military had a large stake in the Apollo program.

    Good-quality video equipment in 1969 required a lot of power to operate and was rather large. Nowhere do you see batteries, power and video cables for this equipment, or the antennas required to send the signal back to Earth. Also, when the lander blasted off from the lunar surface at a rate of acceleration that’s hard to believe, the camera follows it flawlessly upward. Who panned the camera? Remote control? Not likely.

    Mythbusters tackled the easy ones. How about getting some answers to these and other questions that NASA (Never A Straight Answer) doesn’t seem to want to touch?

    July 20, 2009 at 8:46 PM
  155. lizzy:

    All you conspriacy theorists need to get an actual life and contribute to society, you waste your life and need to get laid. Maybe someday you’ll know what a vagina feels like

    July 20, 2009 at 9:02 PM
  156. Baku:


    Moon landing happened. Too much proof that it did.
    No concrete evidence that it didn’t.

    We don’t want to go back to the moon because it costs too much for doing something we already did. Once we use up all of our resources on earth, we will probably mine the moon. Once there is peace on earth with one United Government and we head out to the stars, the moon will be our first base to launch and refuel our ships..

    Do not confuse economics and politics with human achievements.. it costs more today to do what we did back then.. thus, it costs more to go to the moon.. which we have no interests for anymore.. i believe we want to go to mars now..

    If you don’t believe, then that’s too bad. If you do, then you at least will have the chance to lead the future for more discoveries and foster future generations to also believe and have hope for humankind..

    We are a wonderful and smart race.. we will surpass the limits imposed by to us by the Bible.. We are created in God’s image, why do you doubt that he too didn’t give us the capability to become like God.. ? Think about it, everything we can do now, is like magic and is godlike to somebody during that time.. our evolution has happened so fast compared to other creatures that came before us which were not created in God’s image..

    To doubt we could not achieve and did not achieve this feat is to doubt your belief in GOD himself.. and your humanity. So sorry… I hope everybody has a good day tomorrow when they wake up.. cause waking up is a miracle itself..

    Cheers.. and stop the bikering.. if you have something doubt or if you have questions, please ask it in an intelligent way with facts and figures and not just.. “because.. “..

    July 20, 2009 at 9:46 PM
  157. Yikes!:

    Conspiracy theorists are idiots. No one takes them seriously but their own kind. That is: people with wild imaginations, skewed or overly simplistic understanding of physics, photography, etc.

    Very Sad.

    July 20, 2009 at 9:55 PM
  158. Nickanoki:

    Erin, you have an argument here about the government lying to us… does it surprise you that one person might to press their opinion? Also look at the fact that many engineers do not bother with spelling and grammar. Heck, I’m publishing a book at the end of the year and if it weren’t for Firefox’s spell check, I would have misspelled four words already in this comment.

    I think it is very funny that many of the people claiming for pictures of proof from satellites orbiting the moon are ignoring the pictures on the links posted above. You asked for pictures, but you deny the ones posted. What, do you expect to be able to pull out your telescope in the back yard and get pictures from that? You probably wouldn’t be satisfied with that then, you’d probably argue that NASA sent up unmanned spacecraft to artificially plant a flag and move around on the ground creating the footprints and rover tracks.

    Please, please let me know what you require for proof that we’ve landed on the moon. When I go to Mars in 2027, I want to know specifically what you’re going to need me to show you to prove I’m actually there.

    July 20, 2009 at 11:25 PM
  159. Sarah:

    Please people, go look at the lunar orbiter pics. Freaky, whacky conspiracy nuts need to go get a PhD and a life.

    July 20, 2009 at 11:53 PM
  160. terribletoys:

    I jjust think u should have used a vacuum in the zero g plane like u used to prove the flag moving. If it affects the flag that way, how would the lack of pressure affect a jumping person. The other ppl in the plane didn’t have any suit on so it was normal pressure. U guys are good, but you over look some really basic things. That was a double standard. I noticed a few different little things you guys overlook when doing experiments. I wish I could put ma 2 cents in before ya’ll make the show.

    July 21, 2009 at 12:02 AM
  161. Doug:

    I’m a “Born Again” Christian, so please don’t lump us all into the “conspiracy loonies” category. Not one of those “conspiracy” people had even one shred of scientific evidence to back their case. In fact, every one of their “basic” pseudo scientific queries are completely explained by previous or subsequent posters or at least pointed to sites that explain (properly) the hows and whys. If there were only one lunar landing, I could possibly comprehend the idea of a hoax. But from all the apollo landings and the scope of international observations, there is no way one country could keep that a secret for so long. UNLESS… Oh Horrors!!! It’s the “New World Order!!!”. Help! Run for your lives. . . I know the truth!!! “bang!” (Bang supplied by the NRA)

    July 21, 2009 at 12:22 AM
  162. Frank:

    Wow is all that I can say. For those who dont believe we landed I say good for you. You question things. For those who do believe we landed I say good for you. You can look at things and make up your minds with just using your own comman sense. Those who dont believe will not believe for whatever reason they name. I have read several reasons listed on here 1 nationalist (elrom) and several who just have a hard time believing in the evedience that has supported the landings. There is nothing wrong with questioning things. However having said that it does become a problem when answers to the questions have been provided but you continue to ask the same question and use that as an arguement. The mention of any other conspiracies is kinda silly since this whole thread was on the moon landings. Yes I said moon landings not supposed moon landings we did land there and may someday go back. We may never go back the cost is stagering. Either way we once left our small world and walked on soil not of this earth. Thank you to everyone involved from the engineers that made the smallest part to the men who flew the missions. It took all of you to dream it and then make the dream come true.

    July 21, 2009 at 2:43 AM
  163. BBQ coals:

    The crux is the timing, to beat Russia.
    So they faked it, the photos are photogenic fakes. But perhaps they did land at that time or later on. But the videos and pictures are certain fakes.

    The moon rocks were not available till later. A scientist described them as bbq coals from his back yard. Apollo 14 landed in nov 69 maybe they got some real rocks then ?

    I was a skeptic till i saw this. Look at the percy videos, find it with moon landing hoax wires footage. look at 1.50 secs , you see the floaty puppet effect. Also look at 2.20secs you see the astronaught is pulled up from the ground. Also some other videos have two strings on the astronaught shoulders like thunderbirds puppets, you actually see them for a moment. (dont confuse the wires for the short radio antenna)

    July 21, 2009 at 6:52 AM
  164. FAB:

    Yes, hey thats right ! they look like a Thunderbirds puppet movie.

    f.a.b Scott, brains did a good job


    PS, how come there no crater under the lim, if they were able to plant the flag into the lunar soil, which btw did not blow away on take off, then surely the terrain is lunar soil, not solid rock under the lim. so the rocket engine should make a litte crater on landing.

    July 21, 2009 at 7:01 AM
  165. Des:

    I find it interesting that the “conspiracy theorists” are generally calm and simply asking questions and providing evidence, whereas the “anti-conspiracy-theorists” are frequently throwing around childish insults and engaging in name-calling and total rudeness. Why so defensive? Are you afraid that maybe you’re wrong? Or do you just always hate and deride anyone who questions any of your views?

    I don’t really know whether humans landed on the moon or not- maybe they did and maybe they didn’t. But I really do find it odd that NO ONE has been back to the moon in the last 40 years. I mean, we made a few trips 40 years ago and now there’s nothing left to learn? Maybe the US has other priorities now, but why hasn’t ANY other country gone to the moon since then? Seems like they’d want to do it just to say they did. The Soviets were already close to landing on the moon when the US did- so what, the Soviets just totally gave up on it once the US had already done it? Even though the Soviets kept sending unmanned crafts into space?

    And I don’t get why the Soviets would have had to be “in on” the conspiracy; maybe they suspected a conspiracy, but logically there’s no way they could totally PROVE it was faked, so they didn’t want to incur international wrath by making a claim they couldn’t absolutely prove. Even today, as evidenced by this thread, people go freaking bonkers and spew filth at “conspiracy theorists”; if the Soviets had suggested a conspiracy back then they probably would have gotten bombed.

    July 21, 2009 at 8:44 AM
  166. patricio:

    Los cazadores de mitos claramente defienden a su pais por que en ese tiempo ee.uu estaba casi en guerra contra la los rusos ,los de ee.uu no podian dejar que otro pais lo alcansare.Por eso llegando a la luna pudieron demostrar que eran mejores que todos y aun mejores que los rusos.Pero los cazadores de mitos no querian demostrar lo contrario por que quien llego fue ee.uu donde ellos viven.Respecto a la bandera q flamea el una mentira que puede flamear por rasones reales por ej: en la luna no hay viento , y una vez que esta estacada la bandera sin tocarla, la bandera no teniese que flamear.Respecto a lo de el dispocitivo en la luna… es imposible que siga estando en si lugar por los fuertes vientos y tormenta y si el Apollo 11 tubo desperfectos en menos de 1 mes ese dispositivo no duraria ni 3 meses.Una bota no puede dejar su guella en esas condiciones, por que sin humedad…la guella no se podria,seria muy chica , como lo que pasa en el en la tierra , si uno pisa el barro la guella queda pero si pisamos tierra casi no queda. Mi mas grandes saludos desde Argentina

    July 21, 2009 at 10:05 AM
  167. roy:

    The problem with some of the moon photos is: they are faked. The Faking may be “enhancing”, but for me this has lead to many problems. The etched markes on the camera lens showing up behind objects is impossible,and one Myth Busters did not look at. If someone at NASA, “cleaned up” some photos for the public, no problem. After all, we paid for it, why not give us a good product? A lot of these “problems” could go away, if NASA admitted to some “air brushing”, after all Playboy does it, and I know those girls are real…at least I hope so.

    July 21, 2009 at 10:40 AM
  168. Dan:

    Can you tell me how they set up the first camera on the moon without walking on the.surface?


    July 21, 2009 at 11:57 AM
  169. unbelievable:

    @roy, the etch markings in the photos has been answered and proven with similiar tests. do the research. there are links posted above. and if this were to be faked, do you think they would let photos out that would “prove” it were faked?

    If this were faked, given the scale, do you really think they could cover it up sooooo well that the most of the world would believe it yet make mistakes as simple as a photo of a flag “blowing” in a breeze, or an etching appearing behind a bright white object in the distance, or wires being visible in a video?

    They “can fake” a rover on the moon by filling up a plane with moonscape, create a vacuum in the plane, fly thru hours of parabolic curve to produce the 1/6th earth gravity and yet miss wires being visible in a photo or movie, or any other obvious, no way they could or would miss it “evidence”. If this were faked, they would have missed obvious things like that, given the scale of it? answer that HBs.
    Please answer that, how could they be so careless given the scale of it and visibility. Seems silly to me to even consider they would miss things so obvious.

    as for videos with wires?
    I haven’t looked at those but I would imagine if there are wires, really obvious wires, how valid is the footage? People can, and do, doctor footage to support their claim of a hoax.
    What I also find interesting is I do not see in this thread, any responses from HB (hoax backers) to the responses from NHB (non-hoax backers)re: HB questions.
    Why is it that when an HB asks a question, and it is answered is there no response like;
    “Oh, that makes sense, I never thought of that.”
    “hmm, maybe its real after all”
    I also find it interesting there are no responses of HBs to NHB’s questions like how could we fake this 6 times and get away with it?
    How could something of this magnitude, the world visibility, the number of people involved etc, not be concretely found to be a hoax if it really were a hoax.
    Lunar photos faked? look at them. They’re amazing. Amazingly real. By what reason do you think they’re faked?
    Name some “evidence” or reasons you believe any lunar photo is faked. Its already been disproven I’m sure. Do the research.
    open the mind, life is better that way.
    and I agree, insults are not necessary. emotions are understandable, especially given the stubborn mentality of HBs. They don’t seem to respond when their questions are answered. They just keep coming back with new questions, some rediculous, that are then answered, and again with no response. Its frustrating.
    I’d love to see some responses where a question was answered and the HB came to realize they weren’t thinking correctly and had changed their mind.

    Just because no one has returned to the moon since does not mean we didn’t go there. Silly reason to not believe this actually happened given all the evidence.

    Given all the evidence, how can you not believe if you don’t?
    How is it humanly possible given the magnitude of the events leading up to the 6 successful apollo missions, the sheer scale of each successful mission, the number of people involved in each successful mission, the complete and total visibility of each successful mission and the photographic, scientific, anecdotal evidence along with what NASA HAS done since, ie space station, space shuttle etc, to think this could even be faked and not discovered as such with 100% certainty. How could it not be discovered with 100% certainty by now?
    Why is it only a handful of people who don’t believe and with no real evidence to support them?
    Why don’t some HBs answer these questions with logic please.
    How could it be faked, given the scale and points I make above and not be proven, with 100% certainty, by now, 40 years later?
    answer me that. How? If it were really faked, and a hoax, it would be known to be by now by all of us. There is no way possible to keep a hoax of this magnitude secret for 40 years. impossible.
    I rest my case.
    because it wasn’t faked and its soooooooooo
    obviously not faked.
    I’m beginning to enjoy this, call me a masochist.

    July 21, 2009 at 12:11 PM
  170. unbelievable:

    first camera was on the leg of the LM
    ready to photograph Neil’s famous step.
    Wouldn’t you think NASA would have this pre-planned knowing the significance of photographing and documenting man’s first step on the moon.
    Makes sense.

    July 21, 2009 at 1:18 PM
  171. ScaredStiff:

    hey, did you see the press conference afterwards. boy those guys did not look like they just did something fantastic, they looked like criminals at a police interview. They were white as a sheet when patrick moor asked them if they could see the stars. A psychologist would have a field day analysing their negative body language.

    July 21, 2009 at 1:25 PM
  172. liedetector:

    They should submit to a panel of enquiry, and take lie detector test…that would soon expose the great Uncle Sham

    July 21, 2009 at 1:26 PM
  173. Diana:

    Let me guess, those of you who don’t believe man has landed on the moon (6 missions / 11 men total as mentioned above) also believe Elvis lives with the aliens and the Holocaust never happened, right? Give me a break. It is so sad that you have no faith in your own species. We humans are capable of doing so many things like leaving this planet, (as is proven in all of the launches) why wouldn’t we land on the moon? Don’t you think that in the 40 years since the landing, if it and the other 5 manned landings were fake, someone, somewhere of the thousands involved would have come clean and admitted to the plot?

    July 21, 2009 at 4:24 PM
  174. adin:

    Have a look at the lunar rover pics.

    There are no tracks on the surface:

    July 22, 2009 at 3:42 AM
  175. Jaime:

    Funny how all the “believers of NASA” keep calling the theorists names. Be careful, o’ enlightened ones, for you yourselves may be the biggest joke in all of this. This story is not complete, and those who are so certain of NASA’s claims may end up being the laughing stock of American history.

    July 22, 2009 at 7:56 AM
  176. psycho:

    Its like someone said, i think it was Abraham Lincoln, the father of the American dream,You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Winston churchill , you hide the truth card in a pack of lies. If you tell a lie often enough people will believe it. The government does lie..wmd proved that.

    I did believe in moonwalks, and have always thought the photos are definate fakes, the forensic evidence is clearcut. But what is more amazing is the body language of the press conference. That has raised a large ? in my mind. We need a eminent group of forensic psychologists to analyse this aspect, maybe even press for interviews before the guys die off.

    July 22, 2009 at 4:29 PM
  177. REMIS:

    Myth-Busters will become Moth-Busters is my prediction…..Their lunar landing was rigged with NASA…their first photo with the shadows can be done by changing the lens sizes below 50m/m ….the 2nd can be changed by over exposing…basic photography which was never mentioned
    The foot print can be done with cement (a very fine powder and nothing to do with the shape of the aggrigrate)
    The flag you do not place by twisting
    The gravity flight was under preeure and not vacum
    You do not need to go to a star to place a man made object …. just look at Mars…there is a man made object there …work it out!!!!!!!
    Mythbusters why did you not jump in the space suit and then go into at 300`c oven for a day


    July 23, 2009 at 12:25 AM
  178. psycho:

    i just saw applo 17 images, it shows a crater about 4ft deep 10ft across right next to the lim.
    Also their is a small crater about 1ft across very near undisturbed. If a meteorite can make this small crater it proves it is dusty material several feet deep. So how come the lim did not make a crater when it landed, its nozzle is only 1ft off the ground, and how come it apparantly did not even disturb the small craters?
    I saw apollo 11 images, in the blackness, if you zoom in, you can see a black-ring shaped anolomy, and you can see a few blue “stars” . There is one shot with the earth above the lim, and zooming in a bright blue “star” to the right with a streak, what are these ? many of the images have bright central areas, why isnt the exposure even. If the backlighting is natural then why arent the tall rocks also filled in ?

    July 23, 2009 at 4:21 AM
  179. Think:

    we did orbit around the moon, perhaps it was equipment and not Man. The film footage and pics are staged, the same rock formation and craters are seen time and time again, the film footage was accidently erased, the temps on the moon are 280* F , didn’t know they made film to with stand such heat.
    the flag is fluttering, there’s no crater blast under the ship from landing the craft, the foot landing pods are all clean with no moon dust on them, the radiation would have killed the space men. …

    July 23, 2009 at 2:30 PM
  180. Hugh:

    I don’t think that computers were sophisticated enough or knowledge advanced enough to guess the thrust needed to propel the cabin part of the lunar lander back into precise orbit around the moon, where it could cruise about and mate up with the command module.

    Chances are that it would shoot off into outer space and the astronauts would die. This stage of the mission is so outside the competence and experience of the 1960s scientists that I don’t think they would have risked the lives of real people to try it.

    July 24, 2009 at 7:44 AM
  181. Dan S:

    Newton and Kepler could have told you how much thrust would be necessary to achieve docking with the orbiter – and they didn’t even have computers or know what a rocket looked like! Never mind the fact that launching one spacecraft to dock with another had been extensively practiced by both the US and the USSR before the moon landings, during both Gemini and Apollo – in full view of earthbound observers with telescopes. In fact, you’ve proven your complete scientific ignorance with your assertion that the crew return vehicle would have shot straight out into space – violating every law of orbital dynamics, apparently.

    @ All the “deniers”:
    The saddest part of reading this thread is it proves what I’ve observed on a daily basis: The level of scientific illiteracy (and just plain illiteracy) is truly staggering today – especially in the US. I have a suggestion to all of you who have watched some video posted by some idiot on YouTube and then regurgitated it as a statement of fact on this thread, without even bothering to read the thread to see how many times your laughable arguments have already been refuted: Take a physics class, read a science book, do a little research – don’t just look at a picture and say “I don’t get it!” When it comes to space, most of what you think you know from your observations here on terra firma just doesn’t apply.

    I’ve met and talked to a number of the Apollo astronauts over the years. These are men who strapped themselves in on top of a rocket built by the lowest bidder, knowing that three of their comrades had already died in the pursuit of their goal of putting a man on the moon. Another three would nearly die before the final flights of Project Apollo were canceled amidst public apathy toward the space program (hence the lack of a return to the moon and the loss of the spacelift capabilities gained during the 60s) and growing controversy over the Vietnam War, Watergate, and a national financial crisis. The bravery, the professionalism, and the coolness under pressure of the Apollo astronauts was unparalleled. I dare any of you “deniers” basking in the glow of your computer screen down in your mom’s basement to look one of the Apollo astronauts in the eye and tell him he didn’t land on the moon. Assuming you’re still standing afterwards, the look you get in return will answer your question once and for all. This isn’t just an intellectual exercise – all of you are demeaning the accomplishments of a group of men who have done more in their lifetime than you could ever even dream of, to say nothing of the army of engineers, scientists, aerospace workers, support people, trainers, etc., who devoted their lives to accomplishing a dream that humans have had since they first climbed down out of the trees and looked at the orb above them. Can you honestly say you’ve done anything with your life that can even approach what these people did? Or are you going to continue to try to inflate your self worth by calling all of them liars and frauds?

    July 25, 2009 at 3:09 AM
  182. Myth Slayer:

    The light source myth was even close to busted. In fact it would of been the only one that could not be busted in a studio the size of the moon Lander studio was faked in.

    A close light source gives large angles of projected shadows, as you move the light source away the projected shadow the angle decreases quite noticeably until the angle differences become unnoticeable.

    The sun is about as far a light source as you can get. Try the same experiment with a torch and move the light source closer and move it further you will get my drift. In fact every picture in the moon Lander photo shoot, all objects with a considerable distance apart cast a wide degree of shadow projections.

    Even when you watch the moon walkers move across the landscape you see the shadow angle change opposing the closer-than-sun light source, Busted? Not even close. They couldn’t bust this one. So even they faked it. I see this as a further attempt to assure the public of the conspiracy.

    July 25, 2009 at 5:53 AM
  183. Myth Slayer:

    A foot print but no Lander crater? Right! I don’t have to be Einstein to figure this one out.

    They even thought of putting a remote control tilt on the camera moving to take a moving angle picture of the lander going up congrats to the NASA team for such foreword thinking, timed with the remote being so well timed to the lander lift off, perfect.. More like a movie directors idea of the action going on and a cover up. But they didn’t take a picture of the stars or even to even bring a telescope. Ummm.

    July 25, 2009 at 6:03 AM
  184. chris w:

    Here’s something for all of you to think about.With all the advancements in technology over the last 150 years.All of the top secret weaponary the military have and all of the secrets the Government keeps from us a theory springs to mind.Maybee Armstrong wasn’t the first man on the moon.Maybee we were there years before 1969.Who knows man my have already walked on mars.For what reason do they have to tell us the real truth.

    July 25, 2009 at 6:15 AM
  185. tauceti:

    Did you know that the complete Space Shuttle program will be stopped some time in the near future?

    After this, the astronouts will reach space in simple space capsules as in the 1960ies. And no Space Shuttle will fly into space again after the Space Shuttle program has been stopped. This will be for decades on and on…

    And here comes the point: Why should we go back so many steps and fly with a simple space capsule when we had the capability to fly with the space shuttle ;-)

    Do you see the similarities to the stopped Apollo program? ;-)

    And I believe that the Space Shuttles are real and I believe that the Space Shuttles bring astronauts and equpment or big modules in low earth orbit. But I can’t prove it. But there is plenty of evidence. As there is and was plenty of evidence for the Apollo moon flights. For example radio amateurs around the world followed the moon flights. They could locate the space craft as it travelled to the moon for three days, as it reached the moon and as it travelled back to earth. Just as nowadays sophisticated backyard astronomers can watch the space shuttle in orbit as it reaches the international space station (not just as a white dot, but in the typical space shuttle outline).

    July 25, 2009 at 7:00 PM
  186. Ted:

    More than 400,000 engineers & technicians alone, then there were public servants, politicians, service providers, foreign partners, foreign governments… the final list of people directly involved in the program, in one way or another, is very, very large.

    Example: The Apollo-11 transmission signal was received by Australia, using 2 radio telescopes (HoneySuckle and Parkes) manned by local teams, and relayed to the USA. The people at those stations were acknowledged as leading world experts in the field and could easily have identified anomalies in the transmission that suggested it was anything but authentic. For it to be a hoax, they would all have needed to be part of it, and as the stations and were owned by the Australian government, they would need to be part of it, as would every successive Australian govt (regardless of political orientation) and as would all public servants, their families and heirs… for 40 years.

    If this is was a hoax, then the REAL conspiracy is: How did the USA govt manage to silence so many people, in so many places, to such perfection, for so long ?

    July 25, 2009 at 7:42 PM
  187. GJB:

    This is NOT a debate about wheather or not we can trust the US government. Just because they murdered JFK and knocked down the twin towers (and omg building 7) doesn’t mean that the moon landing was faked. _Would_ they fake it? Sure! But with a large scale fraud, you need to kill a lot of people to cover the truth. All the thousands of real people at NASA and elsewhere that spent years working on the project would have known if a mock-up was suddenly broadcast. All of the hardcopies of their work that are studied by each successive generation of professionals would prove this. The missing headline for this to be a fake is “Huge Explosion at NASA – Death toll mounting”. You just can’t keep that many real people quiet, and change that much real documented evidence without doing something drastic, like putting the whole lot in the WTC and blowing it up.

    July 27, 2009 at 12:08 AM
  188. GJB:

    This is a shout out to the conspiracy “nuts”.

    It’s you people who have to see a conspiracy in everything, even when it’s plainly not there, that do the most work hiding the truth about the real things.

    In fact I sometimes wonder how many of you are working for the CIA trying to make anybody who brings this stuff up look like a complete goose.
    (how’s that for a conspiracy theory?!)

    And to all those who wave the flag of science, research, evidence and plain common sense: Of course the moon landing was real, we all know that, but if you apply some of that research to other things you will discover that not all conspiracy theories are the product of un-educated paranoid schitzophrenics.

    July 27, 2009 at 12:29 AM
  189. Ed:

    I believe we went to the moon. However, I think there are some strange things that discredit NASA as to the real method they and the Soviet Union used. The Mythbusters had no way to reenact passing through the Van Allen belt and did not address what its effect on humans is supposed to be according to conspiracy theorists.

    There are literally thousands of sanitized photos of the surface of the moon and of Mars. You don’t have to be a genius in photography to spot them, just pick some high-res photo yourself of the moon’s surface or the surface of Mars where the centers of craters and valleys or cliff faces, etc have been airbrushed by a computer program and you can see that they are keeping some things from us. There are massive craters on the moon where the contents of which have been forever sanitized by software. This is easy to prove by simply zooming the picture in until the pixels begin to show.

    One thing NASA has “lost” will always intrigue me. How do you tape over original footage of the greatest event in human history by mistake? It doesn’t help answer the questions of the uninformed who wish to brand the whole thing a hoax, that’s for sure. I don’t doubt we went to the moon. I question what it is they found either by going there or through pictures that they obviously choose to hide from us and why.

    July 27, 2009 at 6:56 AM
  190. chris:

    Obviously we did land on the moon, but what is being largely overlooked is that there is still a conspiracy. One of the issues the mythbusters didn’t cover were that some of the moon photos had the exact same photos in which some had the landing module in the photo, and the other didn’t. This could only be the result of a doctored photo. Why would they remove the landing module from the photo? Another issue is that some photos have objects behind the crosshairs which were etched into the lens of the camera. Again, impossible other than that the photos were doctored to remove sections of the crosshairs. Seems to me that NASA chose to doctor some photos to make them more interesting or clearer or better for making posters, etc.
    All of that is silly though.. the real conspiracy is that the entire space program is a ruse.. its overwhelming purpose was to develop missiles to deliver nuclear warheads and to put spy satellites into orbit. Beyond putting telecommunications satellites into orbit, the space progam has little value – hence, going to moon again or on to mars is unlikely to happen anytime soon or get a whole lot of funding.

    July 27, 2009 at 2:59 PM
  191. chris:

    one error in my previous post.. I meant to say the doctored photos have objects in front of the crosshairs.. not behind as they should be

    July 27, 2009 at 3:01 PM
  192. Jack:

    Sooo… We dont trust our government, but we DO trust the “mythbusters”? Um, ok…

    July 28, 2009 at 8:08 AM
  193. Engineer:

    One thing that no one mentions is the FACT that everyone on the entire planet WATCHED the Apollo capsules go to the moon (you can look in to the sky and SEE the space station at night with your bare eyes). Every country on every continent had cameras, telescopes, radars, and radio receivers following the astronauts every inch of the way. There’s no place to hide in space. If they weren’t on their way for everyone to see, wouldn’t the Russians say so? Or the Chinese, or French, or Spanish or some nation unfriendly to us? Of course they would have all shouted FRAUD! I don’t think the U.S. has enough money to bribe every person on the planet. But we did go, for all human-kind. And we can ALL be proud!!!

    July 28, 2009 at 5:41 PM
  194. Richard:

    Regarding the claim that the film of the astronauts moonwalking is actually film of the astronauts skipping in front of a high-framerate camera, one very obvious piece of evidence has been overlooked, unless it is in the above comments. It was totally unnecessary to do the complicated analysis to settle this question. All that was necessary was to check the behaviour of the dust kicked by the astronauts boots. It was consistent with behaviour in a vacuum. Now all the doubters have to do is find a vacuum chamber that big …………

    July 29, 2009 at 2:19 AM
  195. Dion:

    Im trying to prove to moon landing was not a hoax and i was having trouble finding info but this is perfect! thanks again

    July 30, 2009 at 5:48 AM
  196. DrTime:

    LOVE IS THE GREAT TEACHER,FEAR IS THE GREAT MOTIVATOR. I’ve read alot of fear reading this thread all coming from Hoax Backers. Why do they resort to name calling, why do they care what other people think so passionatly?
    Fear is what started me think there was something to this conspiracy thing. Years ago I heard on a morning radio show that Buzz Aldrin hit a man because he wanted the Senator to swear on the Bible he went to the moon. I laughed at first, I thought conspiracy theorist were butts of jokes like everyone else.What was the Senator afraid of, could a pillar of the community humor the crazy guy put his hand of the Bible swear and smile.That the first response from our goverment official traveling with an entourage in broaddaylight punches a man armed with a BIBLE. This didn’t make sense unless he wants to be right with GOD, old people are like that.
    That of course isn’t enough evidence to support a theory. First thing conclusive at first without even going to the library was the moon rover something about that wasn’t right. The astronauts are on the moon for 20 hours, who put that together? The science channel has a show about going to Mars by practicing GReEnland and if you think puting a bicycle together under ideal conditions on christmas eve for your kid. How long would take under adverse condition for puting together a golf cart? Also how does a minivan take a VW BUG to the moon even dismantled where do you put 4 piano string tires, floor boards,streering wheel a radio two bucket seats to accomadate astronauts in EVA suits, wheel guards, Car Battery,gas pedal, and brake paddles? Did they bring seat belts too? all to have a 5 min drive? really? Of course this to isn’t conclusive enough.
    National Geoghraphic had a show to debunk all the conspiracy theories few months back. I started to feal kind of silly as they systematically started shooting them down one by one. Things I hadn’t even thought of. Between commercials they would give little tidbits about the moon or the mission. The last commercial break though stated quite bluntly that in 1999 NASA asked IMAX to photograph the building of the space station. What NASA forgot or did not know was to tell IMAX to put their very expensive camera in a thick lead lined box with A/C and battery. If you doubt this why does a duracel commercial show you one of these cameras, something we did not have hanging from an astronauts chest back in 69.
    The National Geographic showed the simple 70mm film camera and it was not protected from the varies forms of electromagnetic radiation.
    I have no doubt we could broadcast from the moon TV. But FILM ACTUAL FILM come back Nat Geo SHOWED that too.
    Sidenote the man Buzz punched was Bart Sibrel a filmmaker, maybe he knows his trade.
    If you want more proof National Geo and the MYTHBUSTERS show ended with the firing of a powerful laser at the moon coming back at almost 16%. Most people will never read or study anything to do with Quantuam Mechanics fortunatly their a book called The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard P. Feynman. In the second chapter using his dumbed down math process for people who don’t want to learn calculus It simple states that the refraction no matter if its half a millimeter thick or over 400,000 miles will be between 0 and 16 percent always. He got a noble prize for this thing he cant explain. So if you have a powerful laser we could do the same trick to Mars, Venus ETC.
    If you don’t know how the moon was created and the current orbit it has let me tell you. Roughly 4 billion years ago the moon collided with the earth. If you dig down far enough and you know where to dig there be moon rocks or at least proof of that collision. Why go to the moon to get a sample?
    one last thing as for reason for returning to the moon and why we should have never left if we really went.First is the moon military asset it is a very large satelite to listen to our russian enemies during the sixties.Second the natural resources came to this planet by asteroids including water the moon is covered with impact craters that tell us exactly where to dig for precious metal and gems the moon is a giant dollar sign. Two great reasons to go back.

    August 1, 2009 at 4:10 AM
  197. Nickanoki:

    @ScaredStiff: These guys are scientists… Most of them are people who are not used to giving press interviews. I’ve had the displeasure of giving a televised speech once, and that was just a speech, not answering questions. I was sweating bullets…

    @Jamie: Some people are just getting frustrated by how ridiculous many of these arguments are… not to mention repetitive. I’m not saying anyone who doesn’t believe doesn’t have valid arguments, just many do not.

    @Remis: Your arguments are either ill thought out or have been discussed already. The myths were attempted to the specifications that science required, and the statement about the vacuum in the plane, that would have no effect on the myth.

    @Think: The facts are listed in posts above yours. Simply restating your already-disproven points does not make them right.

    @Myth-slayer: Read above posts.

    @Ed: That is a valid argument upon which I do not have an answer for, so I will not argue that.

    @Chris: The answer behind this one is simple. They were etched into the lens, but not through it. Between that, and the angle of the etchings, light would refract around the etchings to partially expose the image in those areas. Objects could be in front of, behind, and around the etchings. I think the Mythbusters should have gone over this one to duck it like the others, sure, but because they didn’t, and it was a full episode, that’s no reason to say that there’s no proof of the refraction.

    @DrTime: The Bible thing. The gentleman pushing the bible on him was being very abusive about it. He repeatedly shoved the bible directly into his face, was preventing Mr. Aldrin from continuing along his way, and getting very forceful when the man wouldn’t leave him alone. Mr. Aldrin was neither the first nor last person to strike someone annoying (see “violent reactions to paparazzi”)

    Your point on the cameras is voided by the fact that unmanned cameras have gone to into space providing the same quality photos as those of the moon landings. If NASA really did not know about the camera needing shielding, how do we have pictures from the Voyager missions, as well as many of the other missions to other planets.

    The laser is not on constantly. To receive the required results in the time that they did, the object would need to be the exact distance the moon was from the earth at the time of the experiment.

    The theory is one of the few on how the moon was created, not the definitive, absolute one. And you may want to look into how the rocks on the planet are situated, and the chemical elements present with them, they are different from those we could dig up.

    August 1, 2009 at 9:45 PM
  198. Nickanoki:

    And not one person answered my question as to what sufficient proof would be of a lunar or Martian landing.

    August 1, 2009 at 10:44 PM
  199. GJB:

    DrTime: You have refraction confused with reflection, somebody punching a bible-basher proves nothing besides the fact that bible-bashers are annoying, and the notion that the value of minerals mined on the moon would be greater than the cost of transporting them back to earth seems to indicate that you have a tenuious grasp on reality at best. I’m guessing you got your PhD online ya?

    August 4, 2009 at 12:24 AM
  200. GJB:


    This site has a detailed analysis of all of the faked photo myths i.e. no stars/missing crosshairs/ differing shadows/things in shadows illuminated etc.

    Please, before anybody else parrots stuff they saw on FOX about faked photos; read this page.

    August 4, 2009 at 12:53 AM
  201. Mike Arkham:

    Wow.I have never seen so much ignorance in a same place.
    Now listen. Every parts of the hoax have been debunked many times. Just take a look ( and other).
    Debunked with logical explanations. Different Shadow Directions
    ? Debunked. Crosshair Knockout? Debunked. Shadows not parallel ? Debunked. Why they did not go back? Why should have they???
    Occam razor, kids. But I bet the hoax backers have not read about this either.

    August 6, 2009 at 9:58 PM
  202. Geoff:

    To Shelley who asked “Who was holding the camera when Neil Armstrong stepped onto the moon?”

    The camera was mounted on one of the Lunar Landing Module’s landing gear inside a compartment. Once on the surface, the astronauts flipped a switch and opened the compartment to expose the camera. Hence, it was rolling as Commander Armstrong came down the ladder.

    Why can’t people accept the fact that we went to the moon ? We should be celebrating this as the most important fact in HUMAN HISTORY. Instead, people are looking for ways to debunk it.

    Sad really.

    August 11, 2009 at 2:32 PM
  203. Hugh:

    The best way to deal with conspiracy nuts is to ignore them. But there is always a stampede to howl down anyone pointing at problems with the moon landing footage. Seems to me that this one touches more of a nerve.
    Surely somewhere there is a telescope outside NASA’s control which could focus on the landing sites and show the lander leg structures which should still remain there? That would settle the matter.

    August 14, 2009 at 6:01 AM
  204. Brian:

    Certain craft went there, but my doubts are whether they were manned by humans. Most tasks could be managed remotely I expect as they have been on Mars.

    Photos could easily be taken in a good studio, where the fake rocks were poorly placed. It is still a mystery, so don’t accept anything until the proof is proved once and for all.

    August 14, 2009 at 2:59 PM
  205. Batman:

    Some people just need to see the world in their own way no matter what the truth is. Ranging from all kinds of weird religions to a clear conviction that the Earth is flat.

    I feel sorry for them, they waste a lot of time and energy on this instead of helping to pull knowledge and understanding further by building on humanity’s past achievements.

    August 14, 2009 at 9:51 PM
  206. mike:

    consider for a moment the old adage that ‘5 men cannot keep a secret’ or the more severe ‘two men can keep a secret if one of them is dead’ now think of the thousands of people who would have to be in on the cover-up. no-one has ever said ‘i helped to fake the moon landing’, no…one. lots of people have said it must be fake. lots of people have offered motive for a hoax and even speculated as to how it may have been accomplished. but no one has ever said ‘it was me’. crop circles, bigfoot, plans for the a-bomb, the identity of the unabomber, they all leaked. you have to be incredibly gullible to believe that none of the people involved [in what would have to be the biggest conspiracy ever] ever told a spouse who they later went through a bitter divorce with, ever got drunk and spilled the beans to a reporter, ever became disgruntled or disappointed enough in the government to tell all. some one would have, by now, barfed up that info and blown the whole thing sky high. but all we have is outside finger pointing and speculation. it’s time to put this to rest [before buzz aldrin shows up at your house and knocks you in the cocksucker].

    August 21, 2009 at 3:15 AM
  207. mike:

    i watched the video of buzz sockin’ that dude and the last thing to come out of his mouth before the honorable captain’s fist went in was ‘you are a liar and a coward’ everything else aside dude is or was an officer in the united states air force. call a man like that those kinds of names and you better be ready to box.

    August 21, 2009 at 3:30 AM
  208. Chester:

    The answer is simple. Waldo took the picture. That’s where he has been all these years.

    August 25, 2009 at 10:53 AM
  209. Zeph:

    This thread is fascinating, in terms of psychology and sociology. There is obviously a psychological payoff to holding certain counter-rational beliefs, which for some individuals outweighs any psychological payoff of objectively weighing evidence to get to the most probably truth. In the absence of a situation where coherence with reality feedback increases the payoff of better survival rates (compare this with say a belief that drinking bleach is good for you), the memes of moon landing disbelief can propagate quite effectively based on just this differential psychological payoff.

    It becomes pretty clear that giving up the belief that “the moon landings were faked” would involve loss of some payoff, and is avoided at all costs, no matter how strange the rationales become.

    I would attribute some of this to a cultural shift towards relativism (“any belief is as good as any other belief because we’re a democracy”) combined with widespread scepticism of authority (some of it well deserved, as we’ve been lied to at times, and authorities have turned out wrong at times). Unfortunately, general purpose disbelief (when it suits the disbeliever) is much more easily taught than is reasoned discernment of what to believe and what to disbelieve.

    And finally, our technology has gotten complex and esoteric enough that it’s effectively “magic” to most people (tip of the hat to Clarke). Alas, the bar is becoming low in terms of “sufficiently advanced” technology which is indistinguishable from magic.

    What’s the difference between storybook magic and advanced technology? There are still important patterns in what technology can and cannot do, which with some effort can be learned; storybook magic’s strengths and limitations are arbitrary, depending only on the author’s plotline needs.

    Which is background for the observation that the people who have done the work to more or less understand the technology realize that the landings were not faked, but far more people really have no clue beyond vague and subjective reasoning by misplaced analogy, so it’s all storybook magic to them and they might as well write their own plotline.

    Take the van Allen radiation belts. People have heard that they are dangerous – they are. But most folks don’t take the time to look up exposure rates per hour, trip time through the belts, and dosage effects on humans. If you do the math, it’s quickly obvious that passing through the belts would increase your long term cancer risks somewhat (as does living in Denver), but would not be immediately fatal. There IS a pattern to it, one that can be calculated and measured. But for one who cannot be bothered with such research, it’s easy to just decide that the belts are or are not fatal, based on whether one wishs to so believe in order to reinforce other held beliefs. The van Allen belts become a magic (and therefore arbitrary) plot device in the unconsciously woven narrative that sustains the psychological payoffs of disbelieving in the moon landings.

    Of course, somebody who wants to believe the belts would have prevented moon trips can always find an “authority” on the internet who will tell them that it’s so. Alas, the internet makes it easier than ever to shop for a self proclaimed authority figure who will tell you what you want to hear.

    Side note: disbelievers will read this post with very different eyes. They will think that they are being just as rational and have just as much right to question the “need to believe” payoffs of those who believe in the landings. This is because it’s like religion to them – assertions of which belief is more rational or irrational is mostly meaningless, as there is no objective proof. They view science the same way, because they don’t grasp the underlying patterns that limit as well as enable technologies so it’s all arbitrary storybook magic in their eyes. They literally do not grasp the distinction between appealing to reason versus a clash of two arbitrary belief systems.

    So the interesting thing is – WHAT is the payoff for these irrational beliefs? How does the make the disbeliever feel safer, smarter, superior, happier, cooler, more in charge of their environment, a more justified victim, or whatever?

    August 25, 2009 at 9:38 PM
  210. Gaijin:

    @Zeph: Well met, Sir.

    Only one of the following statements can be true. Each contradicts the others, and all are mutually exclusive.

    1) Man landed, and walked, on the Moon ON July 20, 1969.
    2) Man landed, and walked, on the Moon BEFORE or AFTER July 20, 1969.
    3) Man has sent only unmanned craft to the Moon.
    4) Man has never been to the Moon, in person or otherwise.

    With the evidence presented (photo/videographic, physical, financial, political, historical, etc.), I think we can safely eliminate the fourth answer. Man has been to the Moon; either exclusively via unmanned vessel, or via additional actual physical visitation. Maybe when NASA claimed we did it, maybe at an earlier or later point in time. This much is (I believe) undebatable.

    I also believe the idea that the whole concept of Man physically visiting the Moon as conspiracy to be laughable. As previously stated, the scope of the scam would be mind-boggling. The elements that would need to be involved makes it extremely unlikely that nothing would have surfaced to destroy the charade in over four decades of intense global scrutiny.

    We’re talking about the combined challenges of coming up with the money to fund such an elaborate ruse, silencing the massive numbers of people involved in every step of the operation, overcoming the political and social enmity of a well-funded and scientifically advanced enemy nation who would have LOVED to have called us on something like this back then, manufacturing physical evidence (with non-terrestrial characteristics) that could withstand several decades of rigorous scientific examination…

    The list just continues to go on and on. And let’s not forget, we didn’t claim to do this once, we claimed to do it six times. With video and photographic evidence of each. Not counting the innumerable foreign nations, scientists, hobbyists, and amateurs using everything from backyard telescopes to advanced radio monitoring stations to watch each mission as it was underway. In real-time. From all around the globe.

    So. Almost impossible to believe. Add into that equation the tendency of complex schemes to fail, the numerous ways they can (and usually do) fall apart, and the urge that people have to tell each others secrets; and we result with an almost absolute certainty that man did, in fact, at one point walk on the moon. To have not would be as big a lie as has ever been told (and kept) in Human history. IE, too many loose ends.

    Much easier to believe are the notions “Maybe we went, but later!”, “Maybe we went, but earlier!”, etc. After all, these details are harder to have solid evidence attached to them. We COULD have gone earlier, and not filmed it. We COULD have faked it at first, and ‘made up’ for it at a later date. And as many posters have pointed out, the US Government and associated agencies have made a long and colorful history of lying to US citizenry.

    But there has always been gain from these lies. Usually financial, sometimes propagandic, occasionally personal gain. Aside from the obvious Cold War era benefit of being “The First” (which would also be the single largest threat to the continuance of this imaginary scam, Russian discovery) there is nothing for the US establishment to gain by saying “We put Man on the Moon!” rather than saying “We put Guns on the Moon!” or “We put Nukes on the Moon!”. Either of those would have been a better, smaller, and more easily kept lie.

    A more easily believed scenario is that we have been to the moon, actually walked upon it’s surface, and some of the evidence has been ‘fudged’ for whatever reason. That we may have doctored photos to cover up military installations or equipment, for instance. Or we tried to minimize or exaggerate our scientific experimentation. All well within the ability and prior MO of the US government.

    All I’m saying, in the end, is this – for those who need a conspiracy to exist here, you’re overlooking the obvious. Which makes more sense, that NASA and the US Government faked the whole thing despite the glaring problems and seemingly impossible logistics, or that it went down as advertised but with some side business covered up? Did we film a fake moon landing, or just pixellate a few craters with goodies in them we weren’t supposed to (or want known that) we had up there? A lot of the supposed doctoring of the moon photos could be explained much more simply than “Faked the landing!”.

    Just think about it.

    Ockham’s (Occam’s) Razor – “Plurality ought never be posited without necessity.”

    Modern translation – “All other things being equal, the simplest hypothesis… is more likely to be the true one.”

    August 27, 2009 at 8:04 AM
  211. Kokoapelli:

    Well put, Gaijin! Agreed! ‘Sides…if we DIDN’T go to the moon, why would we have “Tang”?


    August 27, 2009 at 8:59 AM
  212. Nicko:

    With its 40 billion dollar price tag, the Apollo program was nothing more then the most expensive movie ever made.

    September 9, 2009 at 3:33 AM
  213. Steve M:

    It’s very simple – if you believe the moon landings were faked despite a mountain of evidence otherwise, then you are not a rational person, and probably extend your irrationality into all other areas of life.

    September 28, 2009 at 10:18 AM
  214. Trekkie:

    The reason why NASA hasn’t been back to the moon was because they never went there in the first place. Just ask a mountaineer who conquered Mt Everest. He remembers every nook and cranny, every turn of path up that damned mountain. Why can’t NASA remember their way back to the Moon after 45 years?? Why? Why? Afterall, there were so many space shuttle missions launched after that. Why not drop by the moon for a walkabout? The space shuttle is supposed to be so much more sophisticated and capable than the moon lander? Perhaps the Chinese will be the real first!

    October 5, 2009 at 4:50 AM
  215. Flawed_Tests:

    I have watched the show many times and although entertaining, most of their tests are scientifically flawed. They take a “myth”, word it in a way that they can prove or disprove it and then do the experiment. The episode of double dipping proved they approach it the wrong way. Food is affected by double dipping. Anyone that has fed a baby from a food jar with a spoon and gone back several hours later has seen the pool of liquid left from the saliva. They did not test for saliva like they should have. Just bacteria. Well most mouths don’t have a lot of basteria in the first place. They are just trying to make their shows entertaining. They prove very little most of the time. They are hollywood special effects professionals, not scientists.

    October 11, 2009 at 9:49 AM
  216. Xtremex:

    Whether your a believer or non believer,all i can say is the moon landing can be fabricated if USA wanted to and yes USA can not bribe everyone but they can bribe certain tv shows. Maybe they might not have anything to gain by going back to the moon but if they did it once im sure its in humans nature to go there twice. the fact they didnt only tells me that they never been there. Stuff the satilite pics that apparrently u cant get a definitive answer why havent they just used the damn telescopes that we’re using to zoom in galaxies millions of light years away and zoom in to the moons surface of where they claim all the equipment was left behind? I like to hear what excuses some of you believers will come up with

    October 18, 2009 at 1:15 AM
  217. Mr. K:

    It’s so obvious now… 9/11 was a fake, those were model buildings in a studio and the people jumping/falling from them were just little dolls… the government did that so that Bush could have an excuse for screwing up the Middle East.

    Obviously the whole Vietnam war was a fake, how could it not have been??? And… I’m pretty sure the great depression never happened. While we’re at it, manifest destiny is a pile of crap, what really happened was; all the Native Americans decided that they would prefer to live on reservations and so they moved out of their lands on their own.

    Seriously folks, listen to yourselves… I know that no matter what there will always be the lunatics that just believe whatever they want, normally we call these people religious (sorry, can’t help myself)… but I’d like to believe that most people are rational enough to realize just how absurd their claims are and change their minds.

    October 21, 2009 at 11:07 AM
  218. Mr. K:


    The reason the scientific community doesn’t point the Hubble or other telescopes to the equipment on the moon is it would be a waste of their time. They wouldn’t convince the people that believe it to be a conspiracy because those people would just claim the pictures are a fake.

    October 21, 2009 at 11:11 AM
  219. continuation of the cover up:

    all lies, what about the supposedly valuable moon rocks that they passed out that the german govt proved to be fake. how about radioactive re entry? how about the fact that a moon landing was never again attempted.

    October 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM
  220. arcueid:

    I can only think of one solution to end the moon hoax.. go to the Moon (right!) and prove us wrong. It shouldn’t be hard with the technologies we have now compared to what we had back then.

    November 5, 2009 at 3:31 AM
  221. Contact:

    The fake moon rocks turned out to be petrified wood. What a joke.

    November 7, 2009 at 8:02 PM
  222. ph0:


    “So the interesting thing is – WHAT is the payoff for these irrational beliefs? How does the make the disbeliever feel safer, smarter, superior, happier, cooler, more in charge of their environment, a more justified victim, or whatever?”


    IMO, a little of all your suggestions.
    I see a real correlation between conspiracy theorists and the more extreme forms of creationist.

    From what we see here in this thread, someone so-minded ‘does not want to entertain’ anyconcepts or ideas outside the (usually very compact)conclusion they have reached at some point prior.
    Discussion, rational argument, and even straight out evidence makes n’er a dent in their stride.

    A few posters above me, a user starts his/her entry with the words ‘all lies’.
    This kind of fervent denial borders nihilism.

    The mindset of a ‘conspiracist’, it would seem, is less of a reluctance to accept truth, than a vicious unwaveringly illogical rejection of such…

    November 14, 2009 at 3:53 PM
  223. Aaron:

    Sorry guys. There’s no way they landed on the moon…ever! They still can’t land on the moon.
    Wind did blow the flag when no astronauts where even near it. They simply did not have the technology to land on the moon back then..stilly humans. 1960’s special effects had you all fooled.
    We all know deep down inside they never landed on the moon.

    November 16, 2009 at 1:19 AM
  224. ph0:

    Just out of curiosity, Aaron…

    Did you watch the episode?
    Did you read any comments here before posting?

    The ONE piece of reasoning you posted has already been thoroughly debunked, ad the rest of the post was little more than an assertion that every person with a rational perspective here is ’silly’ and ‘fooled’.

    Just another in the landslide of examples of people who _know_ the answers without researching, considering, or even caring about
    ay kind of evidence, either concrete (photographiocal, videographical etc.) or implied (the ‘what about the Russians?’ approach).

    Nothing other than a plain old statement of a tired, unexplained opinion.

    Nice one.

    November 16, 2009 at 7:36 AM
  225. John Dee:

    With the greatest respect to all contributors,this is an extremely challenging debate,There are a few points I would like explained.
    It is self evident that the Mythbusters crew are very intelligent,inquisitive and practical people.There is however something, at least “different” in their manner in presenting that particular programne. There could be many reasons for this, but one somehow gets the feeling that the guys are urging the audience to question more deeply. They are seemingly emphtatic in making the point that they have only examined a mere few of the challenges to the official story. If they had doubts of their own, nobody could reasonaqbly expect them to express those doubts in plain English. I was particularly intrigued by the statement made by the team near the end when shown a printout graph of a spike purportedly showing a reflected laser beam from the moons surface, effectively stating, “There you have it, absolute proof that man went to the moon”. Given that it was easily the most unconvincing proof in the whole programne, surely that was a statement deliberately laden with irony. One could easily interpret that as a subtle
    rendition of “Well folks, thats about as much proof as youré going to get around here”.If their brief was to demonstrate that the moon landings could be simulated on Earth and to challenge us to enquire further, given the restraints placed on them, in my opinion they have done a magnificent job.
    I would have been far more impressed with a demonstration, indepently supervised, of a person donning the space suit and entering the vacumn chamber heated to moon surface temperature. If it was demonstrated that the “air conditioning” unit could sustain them for a few hours (it’s weight would naturally be supported to compensate for Earth gravity) it would certainly allay what I consider perfectly reasonable doubts.I wouldn’t expect them to actually do anything, just sitting there would be enough. I would also be reassured to see a pressurised suit holding its shape in a vacumn.
    Would someone please explain to me the process by which the landing module was able to slow to a dead stop (at landing) from a speed I take to be in the region of 15,000 Kmh without the beneflt of an atmosphere as a braking system. It would seem to require an impossible amount of fuel to deaccelerate by rocket engine. It would then need to, presumably, gain enough speed leaving the lunar surface to dock with the mother ship, obviously travelling at considerable velocity.More fuel.
    Are there any videos of the docking?
    Another question challenging me at the moment is the appearance of the moons surface. From my understanding the moon is under constant bombardment from meteorites as is the Earth, but of course the atmosphere causes most of them to disintegrate or deflect. Any material heading for the moon is going hit it at speed. Given the clear definition of the first footprint, surely even an object as large a grain of rice is going to leave a substantial impact crater in that lunar surface. Given the amount of objects striking the moon from without, and the ejecta from large meteorite impacts, one would think the moons surface should be one great mass of impact craters, ranging in size from tiny (as a heavy raindrop on the desert floor)to the very large we observe from here.
    I am surprised at the appearance of some of the larger rocks shown on the lunar surface. My understanding is that the there is a layer of dust on the surface but some of them seem surprisingly clean. If you have ever entered an “airless’ room in a long abandoned house and observed the coating of dust absolutely everywhere then you will know how I imagined the lunar surface to be.
    As to the question whether the government would lie to the world, ask, rather, would the Nixon administration lie to the world? Remember this was the era of anti-communist frenzy, and a disas trous war in Vietnam. It’s pointless speculating how the Russians would have dealt with a fake moon landing, given their own problems at the time, and that they were dealing with a U.S.Presdident who might be most kindly described as potentially unstable. Even it were a fake, the Russian administration might have pragmatically parlayed the knowledge to gain concessions from the U.S.
    By the way, while I’m thinking of it…….We know that the Earth’s atmosphere is absorbing surprisingly large amounts of water daily from ice strikes from space. Could someone please inform or at least speculate what happens to ice striking the moon.
    As to the astronauts, in the hypothetical case of a fake landing, if they were required by their masters to be complicit in an undertaking that might benefit the U.S. greatly then they would be corageous and patriotic fellows indeed. There is no doubt that if they were offered only a 50-50 of surviving an actual attempt to land on the moon they would not have hesitated. But consider the possible scenario, whence NASA becomes aware that in spite of the massive spending, there are insurmountable problems and the landings are proved impossible at that time. Kennedy’s boast is proved to be an idle one and the Russians continue to make spectacular advances in space, though a lunar landing is not likely. Surely, in the pragmatic world of domestic and world politics, a faked moon landing is not really such a bad solution to a difficult situation,with the view to making actual landings once the technical difficulties had been overcome. The astronauts would hate it with a passion, but if required to serve the interests of their nation thus……Well…What you do? It would be unbearable for those heroic men, and an incredible sacrifice and a truly patriotic act.

    November 17, 2009 at 3:35 AM
  226. M Armstrong:

    Surely by doing these experiments here “on Earth” only goes proves it COULD be faked. We got to remember Mythbusters are a TV crew and show, with a limited budget. I am sure in the late 1960’s NASA could have also employed a FILM crew to perform the same “tv magic”. Only difference is NASA used an aweful lot of the USA taxpayers money to fund their “show”

    As for the reflectors on the moon. People then to forget that unmanned probes were sent to the moon in about 1959 long before they claimed to have put a man there. These unmanned probes could easily have contained the reflectors to send a signal back.

    November 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM
  227. ph0:

    @ John Dee

    I’m no scientist, by any means, but I shall do my best with the knowledge at my disposal to answer your questions.

    “…but one somehow gets the feeling that the guys are urging the audience to question more deeply. They are seemingly emphtatic…”

    In this first ection, you have somewhat answered yourself within your own wording.
    Interpretation of one-liners delivered in what isusually a fairly comical fashion, is certainly going to be subjet to variation from listener to listener.
    Laser beams in that configuration are not known (to me) to be naturally ocurring.
    Similarly, no part of the natural moon surface relects those beams, except exactly where NASA said it would. Unless NASA mapped the entire suface of the moon with a laser of this power back in the 60’s, it seems a pretty concrete test to me.
    However, conspiracists would have little trouble accepting that as a possibility.
    The fact remains their comments are subjective.

    “I would have been far more impressed with a demonstration, indepently supervised, of a person donning the space suit and entering the vacumn chamber heated to moon surface temperature. If it was demonstrated that the “air conditioning” unit could sustain them for a few hours (it’s weight would naturally be supported to compensate for Earth gravity) it would certainly allay what I consider perfectly reasonable doubts.I wouldn’t expect them to actually do anything, just sitting there would be enough. I would also be reassured to see a pressurised suit holding its shape in a vacumn.”

    Firstly, lets point out the obvious – putting someone in a pressurised suit in a vacuum chamber is a dangerous experience. Expecting someone’s life to be put at such risk for the sake of a mythbusters episode is nothing short of a comical plan. I get the idea that you want more concrete proof, but we are discussing a tv show episode here, an as discussed ealie, NASA isn’t exaclty going to spend time, money, and peoples’ lives trying to prove to some doubters that which they have already achieved.

    Secondly, your doubts about the suit…
    You admit they can build a functional vacuum chamber, and see that gloves exist so that you can put your hands into the chamber and work, and that this technology has existed for a long time. Is it such a stretch to believe a whole suit can be constructed?
    Although it was only the arms, you SAW a pressurised suit, holding shape, in a vacuum.

    As for the moon surface temperature, it has already been stated that they had time windows in which to work, due to temp. constraints.


    “Would someone please explain to me the process by which the landing module was able to slow to a dead stop (at landing) from a speed I take to be in the region of 15,000 Kmh without the beneflt of an atmosphere as a braking system. It would seem to require an impossible amount of fuel to deaccelerate by rocket engine. It would then need to, presumably, gain enough speed leaving the lunar surface to dock with the mother ship, obviously travelling at considerable velocity.More fuel.
    Are there any videos of the docking?”

    No benefit from atmosphere, but a considerable benefit from only 1/6th gravity.
    Th same benefit is provided on takeoff.
    It would ’seem’ to require an ‘impossible’ amount of fuel, but that sort of thing can be calculated using basic physics, here on earth. Ask any college math professor worth his salt.
    You will probably find that same professor not so skeptical as yourself with regard to the moon landings.


    “Another question challenging me at the moment is the appearance of the moons surface. From my understanding…”

    THere didn’t seem to be a lot of questioning in this paragraph, more observations. All I treally took from it is that the moon’s surface attributes surprised you.
    They surprised many learned scientists, too.
    Some of whom had spent their entire lives theorizing, as you did, what it would look like.
    “As to the question whether the government would lie to the world, ask, rather, would the Nixon administration lie to the world?”

    No, my friend.
    Ask, rather, would the Nixon administration, the Australian and Russian governments, every subsequent administration of all of the above, about half a million civilian scientists and tradespeople, tens of thousands of amateur astronomists around the globe, all the descendants of everyone i’ve just mentioned, and the CURRENT japanese government whose satellite recently took the highest resolution picture of the moon’s surface to date…

    Manage to hide this from the ridiculously intelligent 20% of americans who still believe it was faked?
    I can understand the belief that the US government woud have _wanted_ to fake it, but the belief that they actually did and got away with it… it’s only the most brilliant and flawlessly executed plan ever. The problem is that by now, 50% of the world would have to be in on it. And hiding it from the other 50%.
    Surprise! We faked it! We knew you’d work it out eventually!
    I think not.

    “We know that the Earth’s atmosphere is absorbing surprisingly large amounts of water daily from ice strikes from space. Could someone please inform or at least speculate what happens to ice striking the moon.”

    Someone may, I will not.
    There is a wealth of scientific information about this available on the internet. You’re here, and you’re the one with the doubts. Look around.

    “As to the astronauts, in the hypothetical case of a fake landing, if they were required by their…”

    We’ve covered that faking it would have been advantageous. There’s no dispute about the obvious benefits of not engaging in this hugely expensive saga, whilst saying that you pulled it off.
    But the fact that it is attractive does not mean it is possible.
    The sheer size and complexity of the cover-up aspect alone is mind-boggling, combined with the mountains of evidence – whether it’s acceptable evidence to the layman or not it has the scientific community CONVINCED.

    What confuses me the most is from the outset, it becomes increasingly apparent the more attention you pay… faking a moon landing for 40 years would require FAR more resources, time, and effort than actually doing it.

    So yes, you’re correct. In that position, the astronauts probably would lie.
    However, they were not in that position.
    Just ask Buzz, he’ll set you straight.

    November 17, 2009 at 12:16 PM
  228. ph0:

    @ M Armstrong

    Well, you believe the unmanned 1959 missions got the reflector up there.
    Yet, you do not believe in any of the six successful later manned missions?

    What a fantastic dichotomy.

    November 17, 2009 at 12:19 PM
  229. ph0:

    @ John Dee

    I just noticed, aside from quite a few more typos, I forgot to answer your question about footage of the docking.

    In truth, im not sure if there is.
    Perhaps they thought footage of man walking on the moon might be enough?

    November 17, 2009 at 12:35 PM
  230. John Dee:

    Thanks for the reply.I was insufficiently articulate in getting my point across in regard to the scene in the programne where the team are shown a graph indicating a spike in the laser return.What appeared to me to be happening. ä person was seen to be operating some very expensive and complex equipment subsequently produced a piece of paper showing markings that the person claims are “evidence” that the laser beam has returned from a reflector placed on the lunar surface. It is very likely true, but I feel I can understand why many people would not be prepared to accept that as “évidence”‘ of a manned landing, and I dont find that unreasonable.The team might have responded thus, Ïf this person has in fact done what she has claimed to have done then this piece of paper is proof that there is a reflector placed on the lunar surface returning part of a light beam to this facility’” The team seemed to be making a point about faith rather than evidence. I agree absolutely with pHo that my interpretation is subjective.
    The issue has gone beyond “whether they landed or faked it’”, either would be an incredible achievment, in entirely different fields of human endeavour of course, to “could they have landed..could they have faked it?”……one scenario using science the other abusing it,but even if the latter were so……certainly a better way of achieving global objectives than using destructive weapons against humankind.My opinion.
    I asked the question about the fuel required to slow the LM, land and take off and dock becauase I read what appeared to be an informed debate between two persons claiming to be eminently qualified in aerospace, although debating other aspects of the Apollo programne, agreeing empthatically that the math just didn’t add up on the fuel requirements. I neglected to take a hard copy and that computer has been recycled.I’m not offering that as an exhibit, just explaining aroused curiosity and requesting input.
    Although I fully understand that it would be a big ask of NASA to put a living body in a suit in the vacumn chamber and replicate as closely as possible the lunar surface conditions, and it is just not going to happen…I can’t exptrapolate the gloves operating from without, to being inside the chamber suited up sustained by the AC.Too big a stretch. Not saying it doesn’t work,would just like to see the many, and in my opinion not unreasonable queries, put to rest.I fully appreciate that it was not intention to prove efficacy of the suit and AC in that experiment.
    As to fooling scientists, world populations and world governments? From my observations of the species over the decades……Corrupt authorities given the means at their disposal are perfectly suited to and capable of selling a scam to the majority. Something to take into consideration, we will, as a way of managing in the complexity of life, believe what we need to believe. Further, there is a difference between accepting as “fact” for practical purposes (and that applies to governments,groups and individuals)…. and actual belief.Or at the local level, “”Ïf the big guy has the wood on you, discretion is sometimes the better part of valor”.
    Given the great differences of our experiences and the way we think as individuals (and thats a good thing”) I don’t find anything unreasonable in an absolute belief of the fact of the moon landings, nor in the healthy scepticism of the event.

    November 17, 2009 at 4:18 PM
  231. mar:

    so what did they say? there was a hoax or not?

    November 17, 2009 at 8:49 PM
  232. John Dee:

    The teams stated judgement was that the landings were positively absolutely definitely genuine, if they have other private thoughts I think they would only share them with close friends.

    November 18, 2009 at 3:46 AM
  233. mar:

    thanks for the reply! =)

    November 18, 2009 at 8:36 PM
  234. Sofiya:

    We went to the moon right? Them so what if someone made a fake photo? We flew, we landed, MANY TIMES! IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE PHOTO IS FAKE!!!!!!!!!

    November 22, 2009 at 4:35 PM
  235. John Dee:

    Thanks Sofiya, your argument is articulate and compelling but for some of us there are nagging questions. One question that seems to keep coming up, is that, in all the space programnes to date, other than the astonishingly successfull Apollo programne, no human, before or since, has travelled more than a few hundred miles from the Earth. That almost beggars belief. Clearly the technology is available. Surely there must be some data to be gained from, for instance a geostationery orbit expedition?.
    One, almost mantra like, insistence from many who accept as fact the moon landings, is that “all scientists believe that the official version of the moon landings to be a proven fact”. Could someone please substantiate that claim? Has a survey been taken of äll scientists” ?????
    If a survey were to be taken…..The questions should read (a) yes (b) no (c) don’t know (d) have opinion but not prepared to express it publicly. (I like my job)
    I think you would be very surprised at how many scientists responded (c) and (d).
    The next successfull flight by any nation which spends some time outside of the “MAGNETOSPHERE” will help to lessen many doubts.
    In the mean time…..question everything.

    November 23, 2009 at 3:41 AM
  236. Moon:

    “I am a physicist with NASA…going on 16 years now. I just wanted to say to all those still trying to discredit NASA, “shame on you”! Instead of waisting your time on trying to show we (not just NASA but the USA) didn’t go to the moon, try going to school and learning how we can go back again. Go be proud of what this country has done in its short life, and try to add something to it. Be a REAL contributor to the discoveries we are yet to make!!”

    This guy works for NASA and spells “waisting” wrong ha fool

    I like the Show

    November 24, 2009 at 5:28 PM
  237. John Dee:

    Whats to learn? Apparently all the knowledge required was acquired, over forty years ago. Discoveries????…..keep asking questions, we might discover whether or not the moon landings
    actually happened.Watch Neil’s lips.

    November 24, 2009 at 10:18 PM
  238. Silviu:

    @Mr K

    But the vietnam war was fake. Official documents show that blue flag operations were used to motivate attacks by the US. It wasn’t the first time and likely not the last.

    Anyway, there’s only one problem I have. Why has all this time passed yet no one, including the US, has gone to the moon. Not even close. Not anywhere close. For whoever said much earlier that the existence of the international space station is proof enough, it’s not. The distance to the iss is incomparable to the distance to the moon. if they were able to do it once back then with computers the size of closets, by now people should be able to go to vacation on the moon! and that would be by no stretch of the imagination! considering the advancements in technology…

    November 26, 2009 at 12:38 AM
  239. ph0:

    @ John Dee

    This is not healthly skepticism.
    This is madness.
    Healthy skepticism would be, perhaps, going out and finding answers to your questions, instead of posting them as rhetorical statements on a mythbusters results forum.
    Al I read is oyur latter posts is an unwillingness to ‘believe’ the available evidence, due seemingly to insufficient background knowledge on the matters at hand.

    Like I said, im sure you can find some willing college professors and university lecturers to discuss all of this with you at length. You can read up about all the fancy and expensive equipment used in a laser bounce test.
    To quote a crappy TV show, ‘the truth is out there’. All you will find here are zealous lunatics that will not believe anything they are shown that contradicts their opinion… or equally zealous defenders of the proponents of truth in this ongoing saga.

    It seems fairly obvious to me that we alone will not change your opinion, or put your concerns to bed, so I encourage you – as you seem like an intelligent person – to actually try to find answers to your question.
    Perhaps one day you will see the irony in believing in the omnipotence of the American govement’s “Department of Lies and Cover-Ups”, whilst not believing in the crowning achievements of their academic community.


    Simply put, why would they spend so much money to do a rehash of something they accomplished years ago?
    It was decided that the moon had little to offer us in the near future, primarily due to the lack of available water; the most difficult thing to carry large quantities of, and the most inherently vital part of human survival.
    The trace amounts of water they had found in some of the moon surface samples were assumed to be the reult of contamination, from many of the vacuum canisters leaking.
    Yes, they can send a man into space and make him walk on the moon, but they could have made better canisters for their rocks.
    Some would say their main efforts were focused on getting the CREW home safe, rather than the rocks.
    After all, look at Challenger. Sometimes, things go wrong.

    One more thing you may not realize is how much of the missions’ technical aspects were accomplished without even using the ‘computers the size of closets’.
    A pen, and paper?? Egads!

    Also, there have been many, many unmanned missions in the time period you indicate.
    Are manned missions your only point of contention?
    I really can’t state enough times how confusing that is, on so many levels.
    Just the other week, unmanned missions proved the existence of relatively large quantities of water on at least some sections of the moon’s surface.
    Of course, that’s only the world trying to keep the conspiracy going. Gotta add new things, keep it fresh, ya know?

    I am 100% certain that if you provided the right people with the right amount of money, that you could vacation on the moon. Tommorrow.
    Start saving your pennies…

    November 26, 2009 at 1:33 AM
  240. ph0:

    “Al I read is oyur latter…”
    Should say
    “All I read in your latter…”

    And I meant to infer what I gleaned from it, not that they were the only parts that I read.
    Sometimes, the ranting part of my brain doesn’t wait for the fingers to catch up! :)

    November 26, 2009 at 1:42 AM
  241. John Dee:

    pho….thanks for your reply. As I (think) I mentioned earlier, it’s not so much whether they went to the moon or not. It would be a fabulous achievment if in fact they had.The thing that interests me is “could it have been faked….have the Mythbusters done enough to satisfy allay the doubts of what seems to be quite a number of people ? I find it an extremely interesting situation, and quite frankly the debate between widely disparate views fascinating and really quite harmless. Doesn’t hurt to get a bit peeved with those whose views are obstinately defended, at times, makes us try harder and challenges the mind. Best regards

    November 26, 2009 at 5:06 AM
  242. Jim C:

    Someone touched on this idea in another post but it can be taken a step further. Check the motion of the dust from an astronauts boots. Yes, in a vacuum, the dust will travel in a parabolic arc, unimpeded by friction with an atmosphere. What this means is that you may use regular equations for ‘projectile’ motion, both in Lunar (1/6) and in Earth gravity. If h=(1/2)gt^2, where h is the height of the parabolic arc and t is the time for the dust to fall to the surface from the top of the arc, then you can solve for g, the acceleration of gravity. Adjust the film rate in Media Player (or whatever you use) to force the value of g to 9.8m/s^2 for the Earth, or to 1/6 that value for Lunar gravity. Then just watch the motion of the astronauts. When you speed up the film to force the dust to act as if g=9.8m/s^2, then the astronauts look ridiculous, their movement is not natural. Long story short, use the rules of parabolic motion on the dust to calibrate the frame rate and then observe the motions of other objects in frame to see if they look natural or not. In my opinion, the film was not shot in an Earth-gravity enviroment, and faking the parabolic motion of dust off an astronauts boots is all but impossible.

    November 26, 2009 at 10:11 PM
  243. John Dee:

    Well thought out. What was the speed of the film at which the dust acted in a manner expected in Earths gravity and atmosphere? This might be fancifull, but could you reverse engineer this one, viz, film an Earth situation,with guys jumping around in some medium and then adjusting the film to make it appear as if the dust is acting in an appropriate “lunar” manner. How would the astronauts appear in this situation?. Die hard sceptics might argue that the manufacturers of a fraud would have been onto this from the get go, and worked to the same formula you described to achieve a convincing result. Could they have used a specially devised medium, and perhaps some extra atmospheric pressure via perhaps the astronauts boots to produce an unearthly impression. I am accepting your math at as stated.
    Could you give an opinion on how high you would expect the astronauts to be able to leap in the lunar enviroment given the weight of the backpack
    in 1/6 G and no AP. Please, no comparisons to the Mythbusters in Zero G. Also, perhaps you could give us the math on impact stress transmitted through the ‘nauts bodies in 1/6 G. I realise the weight of the backpack is only going to be 1/6 of its Earthly weight but it is still weight nevertheless.
    By the way, this is more like the stuff we’d like to see the Mythbusters tackle, tou might like to olunteer your services. Thanks and all the best.

    November 27, 2009 at 4:27 AM
  244. Jim C:

    The frame rate depends on the copy of the film you are viewing. Suppose the height of the arc the dust followed was 1/3m. The time for the dust to fall from the top of the arc to the ground is t=sqrt(2*h/g), where sqrt is square root. For the Moon, g=1.6m/s^2 so t=0.65s and for the Earth g=9.8m/s^2 so t=0.26s. Between the Earth and the Moon then, there is a factor of 2.46 for fall time. Whatever height the fall through the arc is, the same fall height on the Moon will take 2.46 times longer due to lower gravity. This means, since frame rate is time, that frame rates of a filmed Earth situation have to be filmed at 2.46 times normal. If normal is 24fps, then the faked film must be run at 2.46*24 = 59fps. Playback at normal 24fps results in motion which, at least for fall times, is typical of the 1/6 gravity enviroment on the Moon. Stock Lunar video should be played back at 2.46x speed to simulate alleged ‘proper’ frame rate for hoaxed film under Earth gravity. There are other measurements you could make and it gets a little more difficult since you have to make assumptions and/or estimations for some parameters such as mass of people with equipment, mass of objects, force exerted by arms/legs of people, etc. Imagine a 180lb man (82kg) on Earth can jump, lifting his center of gravity about 0.5m off the ground. The fall time from 0.5m is 0.32s and, since v=gt, the takeoff velocity of the jump must be about v=gt or 3.1m/s and you can figure energy from either potential or kinetic equations. Kinetic here is easier e=0.5mv^2 or about 403J (Joules). Now expend this same 403J on the same man on the moon. Ideally, the man is still 82kg so the takeoff velocity is the same at 3.1m/s but g=1.6m/s^2 on the Moon so that fall time is 3.1m/s divided by g=1.6m/s^2 or about 1.94s and so the height reached is h=0.5*g*t^2 or about 3m which is six times the jump height as on Earth; another useful thumbrule. Double the weight of the man due to equipment and you are expending about 403J of energy on a 164kg astronaut. Since e=0.5mv^2 then takeoff velocity is now only 2.2m/s for a fall time of t=v/g or 1.36s and, with g=1.63m/s^2, the jump height should be about h=0.5gt^2 or about 1.5m so half the height as before. It would be difficult though to actually expend the same energy in that bulky suit; you just couldn’t poise and spring the same way. I wouldn’t expect either that the astronauts would launch themselves at full force all the time on the Moon. In parallel with the speed, time, and mass in the equations of motion, you also have to consider momentum. This is what makes the lunar film hard to swallow as fake. If you speed up the stock film by the proper amount, then the astronauts jerk around more since the sped up film has reduced the apparent mass (via momentum equations) of the astronauts below that which could be considered plausible. They look like cardboard cutouts being waved around. This is what makes me think the whole ‘hoax’ idea just doesn’t hold water. Jamie and Adam also did their shadow, lighting, and motion experiments which were VERY impressive and convincing. You almost don’t need anything else. If I were a ‘moon hoax’ proponent, I’d be feeling the wind being knocked out of my sails! Still, just as there is alleged evidence of ‘hoaxing’ in stock lunar photage, there is even more convincing evidence yet to be found in the same photage demonstrating that ‘hoaxing’ is implausible. Hoax proponents won’t be looking for that kind of evidence though; it’s up to the folks on the other side of the issue to do that work.

    November 27, 2009 at 11:42 AM
  245. Jim C:

    I neglected to answer your question regarding impact stresses. This requires some calculation regarding acceleration/deceleration and forces exerted by the astronauts. Basically, a mass (m) moving at velocity (v) has it’s speed reduced to zero by subtracting a set amount of velocity per unit of time. You can make estimates using Force=mass*acceleration or F=ma. By exerting a force on an object of given mass, you can reduce its velocity by a calculable amount each second by solving for (a). This of course requires even greater amounts of estimation/assumption but is, I think, still possible. In a way this accounts for the jerky motion of the astronauts in stock lunar films that are sped up to simulate Earth gravity in ‘hoax’ conditions. It takes a certain amount of force to move your body back and forth under Earth or Lunar gravity. Your body has mass and your back muscles apply forces to your upper body in order to accelerate and decelerate your upper body through periods of minimum and maximum speed in a given amount of time. There will be a typical force required to do this for a typical body mass. The astronauts go through implausible-looking motions on sped up lunar films because our brains tell us that such jerky motions of a typical human body require enormous forces… or that more typical muscular forces are being applied to an impossibly low mass body. Either way their motions look implausible. I have not done actual calculations in this regard but, the same calculations can be applied to astronauts bodies, backpacks, equipment, etc., with assumed forces and masses to account for their observed motions. A good analysis could provide some convincing evidence.

    November 27, 2009 at 1:43 PM
  246. Doug:

    It is ridiculously asinine to discredit the lunar landings by the United States of America. The reasons are very obvious but let’s humor the dissers. The one and only needed reason is that we are speakings of a country and companies that were even then entirely rich and talented enough to do it! It may not have been the most practical thing to dump that kind of money into but it certainly was doable. Other countries could have done it too but it was less justifiable (and still is) and for some the expense would have been very painful to bear, yet I am convinced that if the very survival of a country for some reason depended on it then it would likely surprise the heck out of these dissers how many times the feat would have been repeated! Really just as quick as a countries thinkers/doers learn how to get a vehicle with people aboard off the earth and into orbit around the planet, everything else necessary to achieve manned lunar presence is automatically within their grasp, it’s just a matter of well spent money, that is money provided to teams of the countries’ best engineers and craftsman. At that point it’s just provide the very large budget so everyone KNOWS this WILL proceed with full commitment, Identify obstacles, engineer solutions for those based on current givens, design what is needed, test test and redesign and develop solutions as needed until nothing can be identified that will prevent the attempt from working. Finally proceed with full commitment and determination knowing this is one more thing mankind IS capable of right there along side of all the other things God has allowed us to achieve in this latest phase of huge technology gains made over the last hundred years and just go for it! Actually the US DID have the motivation to spend that kind of money for it, it really was a logical way to PROVE to the Soviets and the whole world that there was no military technology threat in existence that we were not fully up to not just meeting but also surpassing by a wide margin if anyone wanted to play that game. The US (and every other well developed nation too) learned in WW2 that whatever the other guy came up with, the one forced to design a better response could usually do so in relatively short order given ample breathing room and so long as it was supported by the nation’s population with great zeal and the required resources. When the other guy starts demonstrating his new A bombs bolted to the tops of large rockets with ability proven through publicity launches then you have to realize that the US had all ducks in a row to put on a show designed to belittle the Soviet demonstrations of power as much as possible. The economy of the western world needed to see the Soviet military machine answered and the USA was ready and able to do that. No fake lunar program was needed, anymore than we needed in WW2 fake A bombs, fake Radar, fake fighter planes, bombers, guns etc etc going from concept to design, to mass production to successful implementation is the most remarkably short periods of time! Not that the US and mankind in general isn’t fully capable of fakes and deception because collectively we are all, but when it actually comes time to put your money where your mouth is regarding SURVIVAL, hey there was only room for the real deal at that point, thinking otherwise is just ignorant. Even had a lunar mission or two failed in the most humiliating manner it would only have strengthened the efforts at that point … in fact that might have netted something even more dramatic just eulogize the fallen heroes created in the initial attempts … the USA could, they KNEW they could, and nothing but the will of God would have prevented US astronauts from walking on the moon then.

    December 12, 2009 at 1:50 PM
  247. Jason:

    What I would like to know is If Neil Armstrong was the first person to step on the moon, than who was the guy on the ground filming the landing?

    December 29, 2009 at 11:43 PM
  248. John Dee:

    Sorry Doug, your chain of reasoning just isnt logical. I’ve been putting a lot of time into this lately, and finally the penny dropped. Taking into account all of the oddities surrounding the Apollo programne and the scientific knowledge now available, it’s going to be decades before anyone lands on the moon. Just step back from the so called ëvent, one step sideways out of the emotional field, and just LOOK. Its right in front of our noses, a vainglorious president and a small group of dedicated people pillaged the treasury and covered themselves with unearned kudos. It was impossible then, it’s impossible now……it’s 2010, lets get over it

    January 3, 2010 at 4:34 PM
  249. O.S.:

    I’d like firstly to thank Jim C, and John Dee. After reading this from the beginning it’s refreshing to come across some actual reasoned dialogue. The “if you doubt the fact of the landings you must really hate your country” followed by the “of course its all lies you morons” was getting a bit tired. People also using names also lends a certain credibility to their posts.

    Initially I was going to post a “this is what I personally think” kind of a post, but that’s been done to death so how about a continued interaction?

    How about a list of say the 20 most common reasons for doubt, listed 1 to 20, with a for and against to each point. Cut and paste the list to add your own comment. Hopefully this would continue the debate but without the same questions being raised.

    (Q1) Lack of crater in dust under LIM rocket
    (A1) Not sure this one’s been covered yet?

    (Q2) Who filmed the Neil climbing down the ladder?
    (A2) Remote camera mounted on leg.

    (Q3) Photograph images seen in front of engraved reticule.


    (Sorry Mythbusters, tis your forum but hey..)

    January 4, 2010 at 2:01 PM
  250. John Dee:

    O.S. Excellent idea. The absolute seminal doubt for me is the utter hostility of the enviroment to the human organism outside of the magnetosphere. I believe that alone, will prevent a lunar landing for decades yet.
    There are actually at least 50 other reasons for doubt, and I’ll mention only a couple more on this post. There is is no atmosphere to disperse light on the mooon, looking away the sun’ one should see a stunning blanket of stars, which should inspire awed comment from
    an onlooker.
    The amount of fuel required to slow the craft sufficiently to actually make a stop, (and then take off again)
    The filmed take off from the moons surface. That is simply ludicrous, it’s a joke…right??????
    The main reason for this post, is to make it absolutely clear, that even though I don’t accept the fact of the moon landings, with the greatest respect for others that have a different belief about the matter. Given the imformation supplied, it’s perfectly reasonable to accept the moon landings.
    I have the greatest admiration for the astronauts involved. If they participated in a deceit, they were used badly, but have been heroic in honouring their sworn committment to what they accepted was for the good of their nation. Not that they were not extremely courageous fellows anyway.
    I personally have no doubt that Armstrong is a thoroughly decent human being, and probably spends a lot of time shaking his head in wonder at the rest of us for our lack of enquiry.
    None of us should be embarrassed to have been deceived by the Nixon administrations shennanigans, those were interesting times.
    The scam was no biggie really, a prettry neat trick , given the political context. By no biggie, I mean there were no innocent civillians slain or maimed by vicious weapons and evil avaricious intent. Though I must add I still have the gravest and most chilling doubts about the deaths of the astronauts on the landing pad. It becomes a whole different ball game if that was not truly an accident.
    In a broader context, the internet provides us with an oppurtunity to enquire and be informed in a way that has never been before. While we still have it’ as citz of the planet, lets use it intelligently. We probably can’t do much about the machinations of our goevernments and their unholy alliances with vested interests, but we have, all of us, I think an obligation to the species and the planet to do about best to be aware and informed, and to at least try and keep the bastards honest.

    Apologies to MB too, but hey, convince me that you guys are really convinced.

    January 4, 2010 at 4:30 PM
  251. Dave S:

    Always remember, if you’re surprised at the tin-hat crowd, that half the people on earth have an IQ lower than 100.

    January 23, 2010 at 3:14 PM
  252. John Dee:

    Would like to see some source material on that one! But it would explain how they can sell a fantasy like the landings to the masses.Had me baffled for a while there.

    January 24, 2010 at 12:14 PM
  253. infamous:

    The Apollo astronauts left behind special equipment on the Moon like reflectors that scientists can bounce lasers off of.


    The Mythbusters went to an observatory equipped with a high powered laser. They first fired at the bare lunar surface but did not detect the laser bouncing back. Then they pointed the laser at a reflector left behind by NASA and received a confirmed bounce.

    this is measured daily it gives alot of information on the moon.

    February 1, 2010 at 12:53 AM
  254. infamous:

    The silicon dust being like glass and the Moon dust IE razor dust. is very alien,

    its like glass cept in crystel silicon form and doesnt break down like sand does it is very dangerous.

    February 1, 2010 at 12:54 AM
  255. sarah subani:

    the moon landing is real real real REAL REAL REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    February 2, 2010 at 9:24 AM
  256. parlous:

    Why didn’t the MythBusters outline, step by step, the computations of various objects tossed or thrown on the Moon with its apparent 1/6th gravity? Watching the videos at double speed or not, shouldn’t these objects behave differently, that is follow specific trajectories matching the moon, object’s mass and throw/toss force? C’mon, easy to do, why not do it. REVIST PLEASE.

    February 4, 2010 at 11:27 PM
  257. John Dee:

    I’ve come to believe that certain powerfull elements in the U.S., government or private sector must have been fully aware that a lunar landing was impossible at the time of Kennedys famous speech challenging the nation to make the attempt. Kennedy himself may have been manipulated into believing it was possible in order to have him unlock the treasury.

    On the other hand. he may have been part of the greater conspiracy/scam.

    I suggest that it would have been illogical even insane to make such a challenge, in the face of the Russians and their clear superiority in the space race.

    Whoever instigated the “before the end of the decadé” challenge must have been fully aware that a lunar landing was impossible for decades to come. If it were not so, given the wherewithall of the Soviets at the time, the challenge would be tantamount to asking the enemy for another hiding. There was no fabulous new secret discovery demonstrated in the Apollo programne that gave the U.S. a massive advantage.

    The prime movers in the U.S. must have known that there was no possibility of the Soviets beating them to the punch or of them even proving to the satisfation of Westerners a faked lunar landing in the forseeable future.

    Was it possible that powerfull elements in Russia, were quite comfortable in letting the Americans “Get away with it?” Of course it was !

    The same elements were quite comfortable with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Given the Russian situatand the great wealth accumulated by the current oligarchies in the transition, the Russians have come out of it pretty damn well.

    Contrary to to Western propaganda, not all Russians were do or do die committed Marxists, with a vision of a golden age of Socialism. The vast treasure trove of Russian resources would to them, be too good to waste on the masses.

    There must have been levels of communication and diplomacy between the West and the East, that we, the masses will never become aware of.

    February 5, 2010 at 11:35 PM
  258. Mike:

    Some of the arguments here are excellent.. and the maths equations are humbling.. However if we revert to Occams razor.. would it not be easier to fake a moon landing (at that time) than actually going there? Personally, I’d have to come down on the side of fake.

    And an other thing I’d love to know, and no doubt some of you guys can tell me.. if it was do-able 40 years ago on less computer power than a C64 why is it such a big deal now?

    If you went to buy a car today and the dealer said, well yeh its a great car but it can’t do what the the ‘68 model could, wouldn’t you think what ??????

    Just my two cents…

    February 21, 2010 at 6:55 PM
  259. John Dee:

    Mike, I think your reasoning is sound. Personally, I dont believe we are anywhere even close to being able to land and return humans from the lunar surface, even with an unlimited budget. I sincerely wish that the Apollo programnes successes were as stated, but, there you have it.
    What is fascinating, is not that we were all convinced intially of the truth of what we were shown.
    It was perfectly reasonable, to accept at face value the imformaion we were provided.
    What is truly interesting is the inability by many to confront blatant contradictory evidence clearly demonstrating that lunar landings were indeed staged.This is not a lack of intelligence being demonstrated here, but a profound insight into the workings of the mind.
    If anyone has any interest, I am going to suggest a site, but first, a warning, some may find it an extremely challenging site. I make it clear that the purpose of this suggestion is only to access an essay by Larry Burk M.D. and I make no inference that Dr Burk has any opinion either way regarding the Apollo programne, and this should not be seen as an attempt to divert the moon landing debate. I apologise in advance to Dr Burk, but point out that I consider that his essay is informed and edifying, and should be considered in examining our belief sytems.
    The site at which his essay may be accessed is “Medical Professionals for the Truth 911″.
    I withold my own opinion on the premise of that site as it would be innapropriate to discuss it on this forum.
    To everybody………..Please think????????

    February 23, 2010 at 4:58 PM
  260. Mike:

    Thanks John, like you I sincerely wish the manned moon landings were beyond doubt. So I’m not a sceptic per se.. Its just on the balance of probability the evidence for it just dosn’t stack up.. I personally favor your view that it was a mutually (Russ-Amer) beneficial project. Having said that I’d love to be proved wrong.. Your argument about a persons willingness to believe is pretty good we were children of the 60’s and were pretty much spoon fed without question the then goverments philosophys and doctrines.. Its an interesting fact that of the beleivers and disbelievers the age groups vary wildly i.e. most, if not all, believers are over 30 years old whilst unbelievers are predominantly in thier teens to early 20’s. Why such a huge disparity outside normal social paradigms? Is there some correlation here? As a former teacher I’d suggest there is.. Todays youth are taught to think and to question, we were taught to repeat and believe. Maybe its the surrender of those latter ideals that those of us (of a certain age :) ) find to painful to part with that prohibit greater questioning.

    In essence, do I believe the moon landings happened ? Yes.. Do I believe they were manned? No.

    Regards and no disrespect to anyone intended.

    February 25, 2010 at 7:03 PM
  261. Will:

    Since mythbuster can staged it, Nasa should be able too. If you asked about moon soil provided by NASA, who knows where is the soil came from? Nasa Labs? why different soil is given for myth test? I believed that its much more cheaper to staged it than launching Apollo’s. If you want to research further, see the history of space race at:
    During space race, USSR has lots of successful missions (reach outer space, first dog on outer space, first woman & man on outer space, first few satellites orbit earth, 3 satellite flew by Moon, unmanned probe softly land on moon, first spacecraft reach venues, etc). Meanwhile, US only had few successful missions and furthest travel was 400 miles away from earth. Then suddenly, they reach moon which is 250000 miles away.

    Russian has tried to send man, buy died of radiation despite heavy shielding. Its too dangerous. Thus, Russian send umanned space probes.

    Mythbuster is BUSTED. May be they received a threat letter from government.
    (Don’t fully trust scientific/official proofs or results since they are filtered)

    February 25, 2010 at 10:23 PM
  262. Dave:

    After reading all the pro and con arguments, I believe the landings were faked. We just can’t survive in deep space from all the radiation. No country sends people past the belts, we just stay close to Earth where it’s safe.

    February 26, 2010 at 8:51 PM
  263. John Dee:

    Hi Mike, I believe , if we had the means to access a true history of diplomatic relationships between the West and the East during the cold war, we would be astonished. There was of course no possibility that a Nuclear war was going happen in that period, in spite of the alarmist crowd control propaganda. Lets face it, for the first time in history, the ultimate seniority in the perpetration of an act of aggression was likely to be vaporised or and have their secure sustaining enviroment anhiliated in a matter of hours. The days of sending the troops off to conquer and sitting safely at home in the castle were over. Hence the need for a highly developed diplomatic communication. The Soviet seniority knew by the sixties that the dream couln’t be sustained, in the face of world finnancial domination of the West, and the rouble was never going to be worth a cracker. Not an easy message to get over to the heroes of the Great Patriotic war though! Best policy?…….see out the Yalta agreement, give the satellite nations the flick and get rich. Interestingly, the U.S. and Russia had student exchange programnes from the fifties onwards, and certainly, many higher mathematics students from the U.S. completed their studies in Russia during the cold war, for lack of equal facilities at home. The U.S made gifts of very large quantities of wheat Russia soon after the first “moon” landing.
    I think you’re quite right about the age paradigm. Before thinking it through I was quite taken aback at how some of my peers (baby boomers), some of them more robust challengers of perceived social staus quo than myself,, were, and some of them still are, haughtily dismissive of any doubts about the Apollo programnes. They simply don’t want to go there.
    But the Lunar landibngs were brilliantly presented as a propaganda piece of great depth and breadth in scope. In answer to the oft asked question, why go there six times…….well it was a TV series to keep the attention focussed and keep the world in a state of awe for as long as possible. Technically dubious (aint hindsight great) the characters are heroic “can do” cool manly types, calm under pressure, carrying out their daring duties, and horsing around too, right there in your
    face on prime time T.V. Nothing seemed impossible for the omnipotent father figure NASA, cleverly whipping up new technical innovations like the moon buggy,(however ludicrous it looks now) to hook into the love affair with the automobile. This stuff was was impressed deeply into our pysche, made us feel great and however vicariously, triumphant. I remember thinking how cool it would be to drive the moon buggy. In reality in 1/6 G !!!! the moons first fatal car accident. Naturally it is actually painfull for many to confront the overwhelming evidence of a hoax, those were halcyon days of unlimited possibility, and the influence on our lives is undeniable and probaly shaped our pyshces more than we realise.
    Then Dick left for the coast and that was that, not that we thought that was that, at the time ….but forty years on?, guess it just took a long time to wake from that dream.
    Shame that NASA did’t think send a telescope with the boys, since the film and video worked so well. Imagine the photos of Mother Earth and the cosmos, with just a little old 7 inch. They could have left the rig on the lunar surface and opertated remotely for some time after the last expedition. While I’m harping, some full panoramas would have been jolly nice too.But what the heck, the car was a hoot!………and that golf shot, what a caution those those boys are…..discussed on every golf course in this mans world……….surprised they didn’t bake an apple pie.
    Dave, I believe you are absolutely correct. The first problem with outer space is living there. I nearly fell off my chair in a dentists waiting room a few years ago when reading in what I thought at the time to be a reputable science periodical, an article on the Earths magnetosphere.In conclusion the authorative scientist states (As well as I remember)….”Clearly man will not be able to travel outside of the magnetosphere for many decades to come.” Whaaaaaat!!!!!!!!
    However it appears that even some NASA officials concur with this fellow, making it all a bit less shocking, candidly stating, that the hostile enviroment without, is the major stumbling block to actually venturing more than a few hundred miles out. Nice bit of compartmentalisation. At least some of those guys are prepared to shoot straight with us turkeys.
    Its pretty obvious though,a manned Earth geostationary space staion would be a must on anyones wish list, and surely some nation would have sent the boys and gals for a bit of a joy ride in the deeps, for fun or profit……for a photo op….just for the hell of it…..because its there……because theres nothing there…because we could?????????
    Best regards to everyone…. it would be wonderfully convenient for our political keepers if it were so, but we don’t all have to believe the same things…..yet.

    February 27, 2010 at 5:43 PM
  264. ceo:

    Wow, it amazes me the ignorance that still exists. Why is it so hard to believe what humans are capable of?

    Men did go to the moon.

    And ignorant people will always finding conspiracy theory. Like the idiot above who wrote “…If Neil Armstrong was the first person to step on the moon, than who was the guy on the ground filming the landing?” Gheez, what an idiot.

    You all conspiracy theorists disrespect the human intelligence and what this country USA have accomplished.

    Conspiracy Theorist == Ignorant Idiots… and if the future of the USA lies on your shoulders then we all are screwed!

    March 2, 2010 at 9:31 AM
  265. John Dee:

    ceo, I’m just a bit curious if the camera, apparently mounted on the leg of the lander and deployed by the astronauts actually got a mention in the check lists. E.G. “Neil, don’t forget to deploy the camera, this is a big moment!!!!!…or “Control, I am deploying the camera now…..O.K. camera deployed…….I’m descending the steps now”. Or something to that effect.

    I don’t know, honestly, so, just asking.?

    March 4, 2010 at 12:02 AM
  266. John Dee:

    I’m beginning to find myself a bit of a pain now, but this query has been gnawing at me, so can someone please furnish an explanation. I think I mentioned it in part in an earlier post.
    The moons surafce, the regolith, appears to a fine grained material soft enough at least in the first few inches of depth to take a clear impression, of, for instance a visitors boot.
    That said, there appears to be many, in some areas, smallish rocks and pebbles lying about, begging a question.
    From my understanding, given the abscence of wind and water weathering and deposition, the only way for those rocks to be there are from flight, either directly from space or as ejecta from the impact craters from meteorite strikes.
    Surely, virually all of those rocks should have created craters of their own as they impacted or left gouges if they rolled.
    It is reasonable to guess that a few might have gently bounced out of their impact holes and come to rest softly on the surface, but surely only a very few. Most, one would reason, would be partially or completely buried by the regolith built up over millions of years or in the case of recent arrivals,in some sort of a decent crater. The rocks in the photograph look for all the world like the classic arid alluvial pans common here on earth where the stones have been exposed by weathering and sit neatly on the surface.
    Small meteorite strikes of course would leave massive craters relative to their size. It surprises me that given the abscence of an atmosphere, and if the regolith is as impressionable as we are led to believe, the surface isn’t just a maze of craters from direct hits from meteorite strikes and from the massive volumne of ejecta blasted out of the lunar surface.
    A lot of the impact craters seem to belie the impression given that the soft regolith is only a few inches deep.

    March 4, 2010 at 3:20 AM
  267. Derek:

    I am a physicist with NASA…going on 16 years now. I just wanted to say to all those still trying to discredit NASA, “shame on you”! Instead of waisting your time on trying to show we (not just NASA but the USA) didn’t go to the moon, try going to school and learning how we can go back again.”

    - Let me get this straight. You are a NASA physicist and you type “waisting” instead of “wasting” in the same sentence that you tell people to go to school and learn?

    March 4, 2010 at 5:13 PM
  268. R Cohn:

    Not sure why this is still such an emotionally charged issue. First off, I witnessed the first moonlanding when I was 6 years old. It looked like a smudgy glare. Now I have come to doubt what I witnessed. This makes me a baboon, a dunce and a crazy I suppose. But let’s look at all the circumstantial evidence in favor of a faked landing and put it against the empirical evidence of a successful landing. Then throw in the motives and the political considerations. I think it was masterfully done…I just don’t think it was done on the surface of the moon.

    March 10, 2010 at 6:22 AM
  269. pete:

    Russia Today states: Lunokhod-1, which reached the moon and returned the first-ever samples of lunar soil obtained by humankind in 1970. Will NASA accept their challenge?

    March 17, 2010 at 1:34 PM
  270. Brendan:

    For thos that don’t know, pills made from a dry powder and are “pressed together”.

    March 19, 2010 at 2:43 PM
  271. Phil:

    @ Derek…

    Mary is a physicist who failed “Spelling” in grade school!

    I’ll bet you that Albert Einstein was a terrible speller as well.

    March 19, 2010 at 4:36 PM
  272. jamiam:

    Is the Discovery Channel government funded?

    March 22, 2010 at 3:55 PM
  273. Randiesel:

    Amazing. Despite all of the evidence showing the contrary, conspiracy theorists will still hold to their silly illusions.

    Anything to feel superior to us “brainwashed masses,” eh?

    March 24, 2010 at 3:02 PM
  274. John Dee:

    It has nothing to do with feeling superior to the “brainwashed masses”. To some, it is crucially important, to examine critically imformation supplied to us as “fact”. We may be arrogant enough to assume that such an outlook should be an important component in the participation of all people in the affairs of the world. No apologies for that. It just happens that some events simply don’t add up. If the moon landings are ever to be proved as fact I’ll be delighted to put my hand up and say “Well that just shows how wrong I was.” And be pleased to learn something about myself. However, I just don’t think, all things considered that that is likely to happen…………
    The evidence provided for the manned landings is hearsay….corroborated by some others, but nevertheless hearsay. The photographs and video are extremely dubious and the overcoming of obvious technical and physical restraints have simply not been explained.
    Why don’t you just take the time to listen to what the challengers have to say. Trust me, you will come across some fascinating imformation, and find leads to a whole host of subjects pertaining to the political context of that time. It’s worth it.
    It may be comfortable to believe that the challengers suffer from illusions, but for the great majority of them, that is simply not the case. There is nothing unintelligent in either believing or disbelieving in the moon landings.NASA has made a pretty good case for the actuality of manned landings, for 1969, it’s just not adding up for 2010.
    The real indicator of human intelligence, is the capacity to change ones mind in the face of new imformation and the weighing of the probability of where the truth lies between the old and the new. Human falibility?? Just look at the contradictory belief systems, ardently defended as the absolute truth by their proponents in the world today. The only reason for most of that belief is that somebody told the believers orally or by text, probably with illustrations, “this is the truth.”………………Simple as that.

    March 24, 2010 at 5:30 PM
  275. jamiam:

    Winston Smith, the Vietnam War was NOT ignited by fireworks in the Gulf Of Tonkin as you suggested.

    March 24, 2010 at 7:46 PM
  276. Roger:

    What about the fact that there are no stars in any pictures? Are there clouds in space?

    March 24, 2010 at 10:34 PM
  277. John Dee:

    Roger……It is indisputable that viewed from the lunar surface, the cosmos would display a spectacular carpet of brilliant stars, provided one was not looking directly at the sun.
    It would seem logical that looking away from the sun, one should be able to photograph that display. The light reflected from the lunar surface could not be an issue, simply because there are no atmospheric particles to reflect the light back to an eye or lens. There is simply nothing to diffuse the suns rays. Even if one suspends disbelief and accepts that for some reason the stars could not be photographed, (shame, because the stellar map would be compelling evidence that the astronauts were where NASA claimed they were) the astronauts would surely have commented on the spectacular display repeatedly while on the moons surface. At the very least they would surely have commented, back on Earth, how little justice the photographs did to the stunning visual enviroment in which they had found themselves.
    Someone might argue that the visors might be have such strong filters that they couldn’t see the stars……..if that were the case it would be extremely unlikely that they could see anything at all.
    Bear in mind they would be seeing the stars much, much, much more vividly than we observe them though the atmosphere here on Earth.
    Any argument that the cameras with which they were equipped, were unsuitable for the purpose of photographing the stars, may have some merit, but over the period of the landings, surely someone must have thought….Gosh, we could send an extra camera or two, time lapses, filters,motor drives, tripods etc etc and take a whole mess of pictures. A 360 panorama sequence would be just the bees knees too. Best regards to everyone.!!!!!!

    March 25, 2010 at 1:42 AM
  278. Nobody’s fool:

    How come on google earth I can see my house, cars, trees, driveway, but not even a glimpse of the debri that was left behind on the alleged moon landing. Nothing, you can’t see nothing, Zero.

    March 26, 2010 at 11:07 PM
  279. Naf Adler:

    @John Dee
    After reading this entire forum and specifically your posts, I must agree with ph0’s conclusion.

    @ John Dee

    This is not healthly skepticism.
    This is madness.
    Healthy skepticism would be, perhaps, going out and finding answers to your questions, instead of posting them as rhetorical statements on a mythbusters results forum.
    Al I read is oyur latter posts is an unwillingness to ‘believe’ the available evidence, due seemingly to insufficient background knowledge on the matters at hand.”

    You continuously bring up issues/questions that you have with the subject at hand, yet when presented with explanations/answers, you completely disregard them, and continue spewing out the exact question/issue as if it was never addressed. ph0 and Jim C replied to your assertions and answered your questions and generally refuted your theories. Jim C even introduced a couple, while complicated, simple to understand (well I had had to read it twice, but I’ve never been accused of being the quickest of cats) mathematical formulas about the way the dust was kicked up by the boots in the videos being impossible to fake. Not only does it appear that you ignored/disregarded every response that was afforded to you, but you continue to repeat the same issues, the same questions, that the poster you were conversing with just answered and blew out of the water.
    In conclusion, I hope you take your own advice: “The real indicator of human intelligence, is the capacity to change ones mind in the face of new imformation and the weighing of the probability of where the truth lies between the old and the new”

    Regards, Naf

    March 30, 2010 at 7:00 PM
  280. Naf Adler:


    In regards to your post:

    Russia Today states: Lunokhod-1, which reached the moon and returned the first-ever samples of lunar soil obtained by humankind in 1970. Will NASA accept their challenge?”

    Well, I have to admit, I wasn’t familiar with the Lunokhod-1 off the top of my head so I had to do some research. Now I could not find anplace that would corroborate or disprove that statement until I realized this: The Lunokhod-1 could not possibly have “which reached the moon and returned the first-ever samples of lunar soil obtained by humankind in 1970″ as your article states. The Lunokhod-1 was equipped with antennae, cameras and a device to test the soil. It does not appear to have had the ability to “obtain” anything. Furthermore, the Lunokhod-1 IS STILL ON THE MOON!!! The last communication with the Lunokhod-1 was on Sept 14, 1971 after which communications ceased, because Lunokhod-1 ceased operating. Now being that Lunokhod-1 is, and has been, sitting or buried somewhere on the moon for almost 40 years now, how could it possibly have been the mission that “returned the first-ever samples of lunar soil obtained by humankind in 1970?”

    March 30, 2010 at 7:13 PM
  281. Naf Adler:

    Also, to @Derek and all the other English teachers who have pointed out “@Mary, you wrote waisting instead of wasting and your supposed a smart physicist, and smart physicists type perfectly, and you don’t, so you must not be a smart physicist and therefore your point will be ignored”

    If this is the sum of your contribution to this discussion, I’m gonna go out on a limb and speak for the rest of the posters when I say Just Shut Up.

    March 30, 2010 at 7:20 PM
  282. Naf Adler:


    You should probably separate the quote from the article “Russia Today states: Lunokhod-1, which reached the moon and returned the first-ever samples of lunar soil obtained by humankind in 1970″ (which as it turns out is erroneous) and you interpretation of the article “Will NASA accept their challenge?” so as not to imply they are one and the same.
    Furthermore, the article you quote is factually wrong. It should read “Luna-16, which reached the moon and returned the first samples of lunar soil obtained by the Soviet Union in 1970″
    The Lunokhod-1 was tasked with mapping/exploring the moon and analyzing lunar soil, it was not designed for, and at no point collected or obtained anything.

    Cheers, Naf

    March 30, 2010 at 9:11 PM
  283. John Dee:

    Naf Adler, gosh thanks Naf, I feel better now. With due respect rather than get into an argument with Jim C over his mathematics, and his claim the film would be impossible to fake. I simply don’t accept,after many many hours and reading many “opinions various” on the manner, that it is clear that the astronauts are on the lunar surface. Jim C is entitled to believe that he has successfully nailed a Q.E.D with his calculations, but it’s a democratic right to disagree. I even did some experiments kicking dry medium coarse beach sand around and observing the manner in which it acted. I’m not at all convinced. Especially after watching the dirt raised by the astronaut in the “salute jump” video fall back to earth very promptly whilst the jumper displayed some very dubious hang time.I find it hard to reconcile your statement that all other details have been covered and debunked. It seems to me a lot of reasonable enquiry hasreceived nothing other than a “gainsay” response,or bald statement, which are technically answers but not credible explanations.
    “Unwilling to believe!!….!!!!! Er No, actually, by this process of enquiry, and I have done a lot of it, including challenging my own intellectual processes, I have come to alter my own beliefs about the veracity of the moon landings. I came to realise through a process of self examination and examination of evidence as presented, that I previously accepted a lot of my beliefs on faith, pretty much as I had been trained to do from the get go, without even recognising that paradigm in a truly concrete manner. I can understand why a lot of people become agitated at challenges to their firmly held beliefs,perfectly understandable, but that does not mean they should be protected from such questioning. I hope I can speak for others of a similar mindset, in making the observation that the population generally are rather more credulous than they realise, and assume a level of respect extended to them by various authoritative agecies and elite citizens. Warning! Because a used car salesperson is smiling at you while they are pissing in your pocket doesn’t necessarily mean you are are their friend. Citizens it is my sad duty to inform you, in my humble opinion, certain elected officials and others of celestial ranking in this world can be rather careless with the truth in achieving goals which may or may not be in your best interests. Sorry Pollyanna I just couldn’t do it anymore.
    I think I would have to feel pretty darned threatened though, to refer to anothers opinions as madness. But hell, who knows, might be a fair call at the end of the day.If we operate from (so we were told}, Soviet model, of determining sanity…..”This person challenges the official policy, therefore he is mad,” then , case proven. Mea Culpa. I think, although some posts may be a bit wacky, generally the debate has been pretty healthy. No-one is being asked to convert to cannibilism. Best regards from the nutters.

    March 30, 2010 at 11:29 PM
  284. michael collins:

    wow!some people are so bereft of knowledge and are therefore ignorant of the facts.
    in 1962 nasa(the illuminati) with collaboration from the soviet union(grand free masons)built and launched into earth orbit a huge spherical space station for elvis presley to live on after they fake his death,thus the truth could never come to light on how he assasinated jfk over an argument about who eat the last cheese burger.
    so that no one would suddenly notice this new object in the sky they used mass hypnosis perfected by the cia utilising technology recoverd from a crashed weather balloon from roswell in 1947 to convince everyone that the moon had always been there.
    the moon landing had to be faked in 1969 to take elvis to view his new home.
    if you look very closely at the first astronaught descending from the lunar landing module you can clearly see him girate his pelvis as he descends to the lunar surface,neil armstrong and buzz aldrin never left the landing module but simply switched space suits with elvis and flight commander buddy holly who was there to hold elvis’s hand.
    however on the return flight neil and buzz were orderd to eject commander buddy holly through the air lock because the american government had discoverd that he was an alien and that richie valence and the big bopper had been abducted by a flying saucer,it later transpired that the aliens intended to use there genetic material to create a clone who would one day become president of the usa…the aliens simply referd to the clone as goer ge w.

    the moon landings happend,you have to be extremely gullible to believe it was faked in the face of an over whelming amount of evidence to prove it..wake up and open your eyes people it happened and no amount of wishful thinking or ignorance of the real and very beutiful universe we all live in is ever going to change that. peace :)

    April 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Leave a Reply