Episode 104: NASA Moon Landing

Air Date: August 27, 2008

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.

busted

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.

busted

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.

busted

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.

busted

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.

busted

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.

confirmed

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.

700 Comments

  1. Adam Black says:

    The Americans can’t even keep secret what happened in the Oval Office. How many thousands of Americans at NASA, CIA, FBI etc etc must have been in on the moon landing “fake”? What a remarkable secret it must be when so many keep it for so long. Not one leak…..A conspiracy theorist will always find a reason to reject the evidence staring at him or her in the face.

    • Bruce Stevens says:

      There is none so blined as they who will not see. Back when this took place the people involved were kept seperate. (ever wonder why launch pad is in FL & “command cente” is in TX??) It’s not so hard to keep people quiet, especially back then. How many people would you have to see or hear about dying in order to keep yor mouth shut. Even if you didn’t care what happened to you, you might care what happens to your family or other loved ones. Shutting people up is what our goverment does best. Just go back & look at the number of people who were associated w/the moon progran who have had suspious deaths.

      • JP says:

        Your so Thick!!!!

        • Nc says:

          *you’re

      • Henk Van Helmond says:
      • Bert says:

        Launch Pad is in FL, because it is one of the closest locations to the equator in CONUS and can launch east over water, with the earth spin.

        Mission Control is in Texas because LBJ at the time was president and from Texas. Once the rocket clears the tower Mission Control can be anywhere on the planet. Every wonder why it is called “Johnson Space Center”

      • GBM says:

        “ever wonder why launch pad is in FL & “command cente” is in TX??”

        Uh, because congress? Put two facilities in one district and you have one vote. Put two facilities in two districts and you have two votes. Incidentally this also explains the modern arms industry

      • John Doe just waiting for a tag on my toe says:

        The space center was built in Fl on at the time a remote island “Merritt Island” with draw bridges at all access points to contain ANY disaster. A true GI cover was the nazi technology no one can breath a word of. The human testing hitler did led to America testing on its own soldiers mentally LSD and other drugs; physically growth hormone added to food. Soldiers waking up with no account for the previous 4-5 days. The testing hitlers scientists had done while searching for a true Arian “super soldier”. Halfway around the earth in a 3rd world country, “a war filled with blood lusting drugged up junkies.” Any man who knew too much and may have proof was murdered and written off as a casualty of war.

        • John Doe just waiting for a tag on my toe says:

          “Agent Orange” was a quick an easy blanket answer for gene manipulation.

      • feloneouscat says:

        Politics is the reason for why the launch pad is in Florida and the command center is in Texas.

        We had telephones back then and mail. The engineers had to keep in regular contact.

        Heck, even the wild west had telegraphs!

    • Sbkibbe says:

      I was a 4.0 student, have a BA, but by no means MIT material! I’m not going to call anyone an idiot, or stupid because they have different beliefs! And calling anyone a moron and correcting their spelling, is like not holding a door open for somebody in a wheelchair!! The smartest man I’ve ever known, said he knew nothing, and there’s no such thing as always or never if you use those words your wrong!! I find it hard to believe the moon landings were faked, but with that much money to spend by no means impossible! I’ve looked at many photos right from nasa’s web site with strange smudges , but at the same time if NASA is covering up something of this magnitude you would think they would use a better airbrush program? But a crazy test pilot ( all be him a far superior specimen than I ) manually thrusting his ship to the correct re-entry trajectory with a 3 degree error window sounds a bit to Hollywood! Now the meat!
      1) radiation issue ( astronauts in “orbit” report, with eyes closed, seeing white spots, which are radiation particles going through their heads)
      2) we have 3 mars rovers tooling around mars taking thousands of surface images , haven’t ” found ” any similar pictures of moons surface?? If moons easy to access, it should be our first stepping stone to beyond!
      3) still have huge issue with the technologies of that era, and I don’t think most people realize or can grasp just how f-ing far the moon is from earth!

      Some little things
      Why 40 years later are we bounce landing things on mars, and they manually landed perfectly on the moon using essentially strings with sensors! ( understand fuel issues for landing on mars)! Have difficulty with un detailed moon photos, but we can horizontally look in your living room! And the moon ringing like gong! If anyone could shed some light on my questions, especially radiation or high speed particle protection, would be really cool!

      • TI says:

        1 – exposure time and positioning. The most dangerous part, the Van Allen belts, were passed in a relatively short time. Also, the landing point and time was set at lunar dawn to minimize solar ratiation. So basically a calculated risk that a few brave men thought was worth taking.

        2 – Well, how many probes have we put on the moon for the last forty or so years? The Apollo project was, as I see it, mostly about “space peen” and when it stopped making headlines things grinded to a halt. So the lack of photos is due to the lack of things being able to take photos. Beside, Mars is more interesting since it once had water and therefore the possibility for life. The Moon is essentially a dead, meteor bombarded, radiation ridden rock.

        3 – The Wright brothers flew using some spruce and muslin, something most people thought of as laughable or downright impossible at the time. As an example; just because I can’t grasp how Curiousity could reach Mars in one piece it doesn’t mean I think the whole thing is impossible and has to be a hoax. I just admit to myself that I don’t know and that some people who are a whole lot smarter than me managed to get the job done.

        Also, Viking 1 landed on Mars seven years after Apollo 11 touched down on the moon, a completely autonomous landing performed with the “tech of the era.” Do you think that is a hoax too?

      • Freeride Forever says:

        Hey, I know this is about a half year late. I suspect that the first “landing” might’ve been bogus. In the movie “In The Shadow Of The Moon” when they are planting the flag, it looks like dust is being blown across the surface, where no one is standing. If it’s some kind of visual artifact or somethig, I don’t really buy it. It’s suspicious. However, bouncing something off of Mars would be because it’s much bigger than the moon, almost as big as the Earth, yet has very little atmosphere. It’s also much farther away making it harder to bring sufficient rocket fuel.

      • Juan says:

        I agree with everything you said. People believes whatever they feel like, and at the end of the day that creates their realities, that to them are irrefutable. So the truth is out there, but only for those who want to see it. Entering a discussion in this regards is point less, it doesn’t matter how many people knows what the truth is, the truth needs of no one to be truth. And like your smart friend said, we know nothing. I would hope more people would see things as you do, but how can you discuse something with someone that makes not backed up statements about something they have no reality on. It’s like if a child tells you being a thief is awesome as he saw it on TV, you know it isn’t but even if you explain it, they might grasp it, but their reality remains. It’s a tough life. For those here who really wanna see the moon and even walk on it, i recommend an intense meditation retreat and a lot of introspective thought.

      • Juan says:

        I agree with everything you said. People believes whatever they feel like, and at the end of the day that creates their realities, that to them are irrefutable. So the truth is out there, but only for those who want to see it. Entering a discussion in this regards is point less, it doesn’t matter how many people knows what the truth is, the truth needs of no one to be truth. And like your smart friend said, we know nothing. I would hope more people would see things as you do, but how can you discuse something with someone that makes not backed up statements about something they have no reality on. It’s like if a child tells you being a thief is awesome as he saw it on TV, you know it isn’t but even if you explain it, they might grasp it, but their reality remains. It’s a tough life. For those here who really wanna see the moon and even walk on it, i recommend an intense meditation retreat and a lot of introspective thought. :D

    • Martin says:

      Only a hand-full of people knew the big picture. It’s easy to hide something like this only if everyone has a little role in it.

    • K says:

      Neil Armstrong committed suicide. Perhaps it was because he was kept quiet?

      • G says:

        You’ve gotta be kiddin’ me! Neil Armstrong DID NOT commit suicide! He died from complications during surgery here in C-Bus, OH. Sheesh.

    • ashley says:

      Boy Stop!

    • Jason says:

      Prior to reading this website I had a great deal of respect for the Mythbusters. Unfortunately, both the original moon landing footage and the explanations proposed are not relevant and prove nothing. Due to a host of scientific factors, we still cannot land a human on the moon safely today and this is why in the modern era no one has attempted it. I think the general public are not aware that the ISS is 300 odd Km from earth and the moon is 1000 times this distance!! The radiation belts are also ignored as well as many physics principles that clearly show a human will not survive. The matter is easily solved. We don’t even need to go to the moon. Just send a human outside the radiation zone and bring them back. Any volunteers?

  2. John Dee says:

    Adam Black May 14.

    Hmmn. I don’t think thats much of an argument. Surprisingly few people would need to be involved. Certainly not thousands. The components were manufactured by various contractors and assembled by Nasa. Provided the overall design was halfway feasible, none of the contractors could be certain of where the package ended up.
    The rocket was launched by “Launch Control” which involved a great many people, but then “Mission Control” took over. Mission Control needed only a few people, and the others involved were the astronauts and, if it were faked, a film crew.
    One can assume all parties involved were highly dedicated and faithfull servants with a great deal to lose if they went public.
    The “Americans” have thousands of security personell operating in a great many agencies involved in covert activities throught the world. How often do we hear of one of these people releasing high grade secret imformation? We don’t! High grade secret imformation is entrusted only to
    personell of considerable rank. There clearly must be tens of thousands of pieces of top grade intelligence that we will never be exposed to public scrutiny.
    I cannot say definitely that manned moon landings did not occur. I would be more inclined to believe it if a manned craft were flown more than five hundred miles from the surface of the planet. We know what happened when the shuttle went as high as three hundred and fifty miles, oddly the Apollo missions had no such problems.
    The photographs the lander on the moons surface, are most odd. It would have required 3,000 lbs of thrust to a point very close to the lunar surface to land the craft, yet we see no disturbance of the surface, tho the astronauts footprints demonstrate (1/6 gravity mind you) that it is loose soil.
    The stars should be dramtically visible and easily photographed from the lunar surface.
    There should be dust, observed to be billowing up, in the dish shaped feet of the craft.
    In 1/6 gravity and zero atmospheric pressure, the astronauts should have been capable of astonishing feats.
    And thats only a start, there are many many other anomalies that demand observation. It is perfectly obvious that there is good reason to doubt that manned moon landings actually occured.
    If you mean by “The evidence staring us in the face” is hearsay evidence, the evidence of dubious photographs and alleged artefacts to which we must accept the stated provenance, I doubt your case would have much probability of success in a court of law, given the doubt that can be raised against it.
    I suggest you watch the interview of the astronauts who made the first landing, after the “debriefing period”. They certainly don’t appear to be triumphant pioneers in their mannerisms and speech.
    In the critical political period at that time, could it have been faked for the obvious benefits of such a demonstration of
    nations prowess and it’s superior system?
    Of course it could have been faked. Would it have been faked? Well, Richard Nixon was the President.
    Could it be kept secret.? Yes definitely.
    We’ll know more in 2026.
    They certainly don

    • m says:

      I certainly agree. I think the most revealing evidence against the landing is in the prowess of the production on an alien planetary object that is supposedly being filmed live.

      There is a lot of editing and cuts from one camera to another and WHo is holding the camera and panning it upwards as they are leaving the Moon?

      • Luke says:

        Hi M. Have you ever heard of something called ‘remote control’? All the ‘editing’ was done at mission control. And for the record, they only have one shot of the lander taking off because that shot is very difficult to get by remote control due to a radio signal delay of about 2 seconds. I believe they only pulled it off on the last mission.

        • Jeremy says:

          Actually the delay was 8 seconds.

      • J.Gunawardena says:

        Please study the Apollo program from the beginning before you comment.Lunar rover has a front mounted color video camera which can be remote controlled (pan – tilt)from the earth.This camera framed the lander when it finally parked some distance away from the lander.A man was specially trained to manipulate this camera because there would be 03 second delay. you can find a lot of information about this camera (Pl. google lunar rover camera).

    • rsduhamel says:

      Dust doesn’t billow in a vacuum. It would blow straight away from the lander in a parabolic arc and stay where it hit the lunar surface.

    • Rob says:

      How is anyone stupid enough to believe this? Over 40,000 NASA workers were part of this project, working on it the entire 1960 decade – that is a 100% accepted fact, anywhere you go. So, how do you keep that many people “in on the secret” when Alex Rodriguez (MLB) couldn’t keep his steroid problems a secret between less than 20 people?

      If anyone at all is stupid enough to believe this…there’s undeniable evidence everywhere that all of the “conspiracy” theories are false – just watch the mythbusters video, they approach every theory and bust it – meaning, it is impossible to fake the 1969 moon landing.

      I’m just disgusted that enough people actually believed this that Mythbusters had to prove it wrong – and that people still don’t believe it was real even when (to quote above) the evidence is “staring us in the face.”

      Get something better to do with your time, crazy Russian conspiracists.

      • Todd says:

        Only being close minded can be considered stupid.
        You would need to invest some of your time educating yourself with the facts to have a true opinion on the matter.
        Though most of your type (rude, close minded, arrogant) spend the time following sports or actors like religious leaders.
        Myth Busters are puppets of the media, you speak of them like scientist and that my friend is stupid.

      • b says:

        U know if all of u looked at the way technology took off right after this moon landing us believe they landed on the moon and maybe that’s y those astronauts acted so weird cause they witnessed. Something they didn’t expect to c Henderson why we’ve never went back! Smoke that over

    • Engineer says:

      You conspiracy theory people are an embarrassment to humanity. I’ll bet you have relatives in Europe still claiming that the discovery of the Americas was a hoax because “crossing the Atlantic in a wooden sailboat is clearly impossible.”

    • feloneouscat says:

      What would be the point of faking a landing? There is no monetary advantage, only a short-lived prestige advantage – if it were fake it becomes pointless.

      Nor were the devices that came from the development of it fake. For a nation that is used to “fake” reality shows, I guess I can see your inability to comprehend what the US was going through at the time.

      Three men spent quite a lot of time in a very small craft (go look at it some time – I was stunned at how small it was). The men were tired and exhausted. Apollo 1 was always lurking in the back of peoples mind.

      If you doubt the moon landing, you probably doubt nukes of the time period. In fact, doubt everything that came about from the 60′s. It was a time of rapid growth in engineering.

      But everyone who believes it was faked doesn’t understand the time period.

      The moon landing did little to advance the US in terms of “national prowess”. It was a sideshow.

      What was more impressive was Nixon and Brezhnev signing a nuclear arms treaty. Nixon going to China.

      I find it amusing that people want to argue that the moon landing didn’t happen and yet accept that we had satellites in orbit; that we had ICBM’s; that we had the beginnings of the microprocessor. Their belief is not predicated on science but on “I don’t think XYZ would happen”. That’s not science. That’s distrust.

      I watched every moon launch. I knew the Apollo and the moon lander inside out. It wasn’t a “one-shot”… we had 6 landings and they were all awesome. I’m sorry that you can’t believe in the strength of the human spirit or technology. Perhaps you should look at the tech used to first circumnavigate the globe?

  3. J says:

    If everything could be proven on earth who says the government couldn’t have done the same to fake it?

    • Matt says:

      These things were proven with things we learned from our time on the moon. It would have been hard to test for things you don’t know about. By the way, where did all those moon rocks come from if we were never on the moon?

    • GBM says:

      because it was done in the 1960′s . . .

  4. Matt says:

    I do feel sad for people who don’t believe the moon landing. They are essentially saying that humanity lacks the will, imagination, intelligence, innovation, skill, bravery, and determination to do something difficult and astonishing. How can we move forward with that mindset?

    • Max Dirnberger says:

      It’s because they lack the will, intelligence etc. to do anything more than order a pizza. That’s why it’s inconceivable anyone else could.

      • Engineer says:

        That’s wonderful, Max. Thanks.

    • Neil says:

      Mindset and beliefs are not always the same thing. Someone can believe in imagination, will, determination, etc but can believe that an event didn’t happen because it was just too difficult or beyond human’s abilities (at the time).

      I don’t know what to believe but I’d say it’s 60/40 in favour of a hoax. But then again I do like a good conspiracy and the US are known for them!

  5. John Dee says:

    Matt. June 18.
    Complete non sequitur. The people challenging the manned moon landings as fact are not saying anything of the sort and you misrepresent them. Undoubtedly all of the attributes you list were present and acted out. But with the best will in the world when a designated task proves for technical reasons impossible, (and it still is and will be so for deades yet) other human qualities may come into play.

    You have to understand the political imperative at the time to prove technical superiority over the Communists, to realise the importance of this pragmatic, but now clearly obvious fraud.

    The Apollo astronauts remain some of the greatest patriots and heroes in American history, not only for their proven achievements, but for acts of personal sacrifice of a gravity and importance will not be appreciated for a long time yet.

    They are even greater men than you realise.

    • Luke says:

      Impossible and will be for decades yet? You do realize we can already manipulate DNA and create new biological organs from stem cells? The only thing that’s keeping us off MARS is budget. Whilst going to the moon is easily within technological possibility, it is also unfortunately very expensive.

      • John Doe just waiting for a tag on my toe says:

        The Tech all came from the same era

  6. Robert Weeks says:

    I would suggest that you not say any of this BS to anyone who has actually been to the moon. Buzz Aldrin decked someone who tried to mouth off about his favorite conspriracy theory. You do not tell a great hero that his life’s greatest accomplishment is a lie to his face without getting an appropriate response.

  7. The Neo says:

    Oh gosh….the government did not fake it but your girlfriend did! Hah! take that you non believers!

    • OhYeah says:

      Haha! That’s the best comment on here.

  8. JD says:

    because you “wankers” haven’t done it yet? we’re going to Mars…

  9. Mark says:

    The moon landing took place at the height of the Cold War.

    Yet the Soviet’s didn’t come out and claim the whole thing was a fake?

    Surely if anybody in the World was going to claim it was faked it would have been the Soviets?

    • BillSteve says:

      Thank you. Finally, someone gets it. The only people with the actual means to disprove the moon landing were the soviets. everyone else’s crackpot theories are unscientific but the soviets would have had the means and the motivation to claim that the whole thing never happened, had it never happened. Guess what tin hat lovers, America went to the moon.

      • lolwut says:

        Using that as a point of argument is simply fallacious. You’re assuming peoples of a totally different mindset would exhibit the same (egotistic) behavior.

        Perhaps if Russia went to the moon then the Americans might have tried everything to disprove it, but that presumption has no bearing on what the Russians might or might not do.

        • Feek says:

          Except for the years and years of Russians proving that they had a hardon for proving Americans wrong.

          • Tomco says:

            The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project was a public collaborative effort. Before that it was secretive collaborations. Many people don’t recognize that the Soviet and American space programs both stemmed from the German scientists captured at the end of WWII who continued to work together. Scientifically speaking the Russians happily perpetuated the secret.

  10. Luke says:

    I’m sure if you lent NASA $20 billion or so from your piggy bank they could.

  11. Opopo says:

    “humanity lacks the will, imagination, intelligence, innovation, skill, bravery, and determination to do something difficult and astonishing”

    Just look no further than the last 20 years! Was it innovation that brought us G.W. Bush? Was it intelligence that brought us the Irag and Afghanistan Illegal Occupastions? Was it imagination that opened the doors to Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo? Was it skill that dropped the nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Was it bravery to assasinate an foreign national before taking him to court? And was it determination that led to the bailing out of the Big Banks after they looted the treasury?

    Where is all this intelligence, innovation, skill, bravery, and determination that you speak of?

    Those things haven’t esisted in America since, well, the MOON LANDING.

  12. Mauro says:

    What’s wrong with you people?
    Do you really don’t believe on the moon landing?
    If you read all the details about the project, every single step you won’t find any science gap or mistake.
    1000′s of scientists around the world are unanimous about it including the Soviets that in 1969 were deeply frusrated because there was no choice other than recognizing the Apollo Program success.
    Hoax people, better u come up with more plausible argument because everything you guys say doesn’t make any sense.

  13. John Dee says:

    Mauro July 24

    You’ll find that your statements are all untrue if you take the time to some proper research. You’ll find many absurd anomalies in the science and the photographic record.
    Just the experiences of the astronauts in the shuttle at only three hundred and fifty miles above the earths surface should tell you something. The intense conditions hostile to humans is the obvious reason we haven’t been to the moon and won’t be going to Mars soon, or even venturing more than a few hundred miles from the Earths surface.
    Apart from the alleged moon landings, we’ve never had manned orbits even a thousand miles up. Doesn’t that strike you as a little odd?
    At the time the Russians had no way of knowing whether manned missions were occuring and by the time they did have the tech to track, the whole programe was abruptly cancelled. You’ll find many Russian scientists and American too, highly sceptical still, if you take the time to do the work.

    • jakebrake says:

      Are you that stupid the shuttle was made for geosync orbit,who the hell would observe the earth 1,000 miles above it::oh and by the way the engines on the saturn rockets produce a lot more thrust than the srb and engines on the shuttle which made it possable to go too the moon

  14. Tom says:

    John Dee July 24

    You say the reason that the Soviets didn’t say that Apollo 11 was a hoax is because the Soviets didn’t have the technology to do so. Well that’s just flat out wrong. In case you don’t know the soviets actually beat the US into space so they would certainly have the technology to determine if the Apollo 11 landing was faked. Also you point out that there has never been a maned orbit 1000 miles above the surface and well thats because that would be a waste on fuel. Since you don’t need to be that high above Earth to orbit (Yuri Gagarin orbited between 105 and 203 mi and Alan Shepard [First American in space] orbited at around 116 mi) And you’d actually be hard pressed to find any scientist in physics, astronomy, cosmology or astrophysics who believes that the moon landing was faked.

  15. Nathan says:

    Anyone who believes the moon landing was faked is a retarded idiot. Just read any of the myriad evidence that it really happened and you’ll realize how idiotic the assumption that it didn’t is.

    • JJ says:

      Wow excellent argument. I’ll start believing everything NASA tells me now.

  16. Grang says:

    The moon landings were completed 6 times.
    The last Apollo mission, 18, was not a landing.
    11, 12, 14 ,15 ,16 ,and 17 made it there and returned.
    Nasa has a great library of photographs.

    Of course they went to the moon 6 times.

    But why do hoax believers only seem to have questions regarding Apollo 11?

  17. john scott says:

    maybe man did get to the moon. they just never came back. maybe it was a one way ticket.
    why did bush a few years back suddenly show an interest to get to the moon again. could it be they are worried that the chinese will in time find out the truth?

    • Moron says:

      Bush also faked the invention of the Internet and smartphones that can fake-store entire movies in the palm of your hand. There are millions of crazy morons around who actually type messages into keyboards hoping that someone on the other side of the planet will be able to read that. I guess soon they are gonna wanna make us believe that pictures can be sent through nothing but thin air and the earth has existed for over 6000 years. I guess you and me are the only sane people in a world of morons. (sent from my iphone somewhere in Europe 10000 years in the future from your vantage point)

    • JohnJay60 says:

      How does returning to the moon stop China from making its initial visit? All subsequent probes and telescopes looking at old landing sites find the evidence required of actual visits.

    • oliver says:

      “why did bush a few years back suddenly show an interest to get to the moon again.”

      Because he was a politician trying to drum up support for a party that primarily trades in patriotism and nostalgia?

      • dave says:

        good point :) but I wouldn’t vote democrat unless my life depended on it (my life being that which I value more than my political statement.) I still believe we’ve been to the moon.

  18. Grang says:

    Robert Weeks says:

    I would suggest that you not say any of this BS to anyone who has actually been to the moon. Buzz Aldrin decked someone who tried to mouth off about his favorite conspriracy theory. You do not tell a great hero that his life’s greatest accomplishment is a lie to his face without getting an appropriate response.
    July 4, 2011 at 12:29 AM #
    Reply

    Mr “Buzz” Aldrin asked that dude to “get away from me” before that dude called him a “coward and A liar”.

    A then 70+ year old man knocked out a MUCH younger man with a single punch.

    Mr Aldrin was sued over this incident.

    The judge threw out the case…

    If you tell a national hero that he is a fake and a liar to his face.. you get wasted.. yer own fault.

    • JOSH says:

      Go Aldrin!

      • Tomco says:

        So much easier to punch someone in the face then to have to lie.

    • Jordan says:

      The judge said that the guy on the business end of that punch “had it coming”. He was totally right.

  19. Tony says:

    Go to Mars – Cydonia much more interesting than the Moon.

  20. Rob H. says:

    It’s funny, I always thought it would be impossible to prove that we went there, but on Mythbusters they showed that we left a laser reflector there, and proved that it is still there. There’s no way around it, unless the Mythbusters are secret government agents too. People who believe that the landings were faked are just not that bright.

    • John Earl says:

      Do you have any idea it is to place a reflective surface on the moon? Certainly not proof of our having landed, much less taken off after. The motive for creating disinformation of this sort, is overwhelming; and for that matter, the Russians were terrified we would discover their fake advances in technology. They were both glad to accept the lie and save face.

      Scientifically speaking, the Saturn rockets couldn’t have delivered the payload with 800 times the fuel they used in those missions. Not only didn’t they happen; they couldn’t have happened.

      • Feek says:

        “Scientifically speaking”? Ok, show me the math.

      • JC says:

        Let’s see your math. John. I mean it. Show the math or accept the fact that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

  21. mark says:

    pls dont argue with theses guys. they believe every thing they see on tv and read in there papers.They still believe JFK was killed by a lone assassin and the trade towers was the work of Bin laden. But to really understand whats going on behind the scene pls do a research on the illuminati, the jesuit order and the freemasons.

    • Moron says:

      The Internet is an illusion created by the freemasons. The Twin Towers have never existed and all islamist terrorists from Bali to Madrid to London to Mumbai to New York to Kabul to Baghdad are Mossad agents just like the Jewish actor who played Bin Laden until he retired on George Bush’s ranch. If only people could get rid of the alien implants and realize that pictures cannot travel through air and man cannot fly to the moon.

      • dave says:

        You might think it’s a long walk down to the chemist’s but that’s just peanuts compared to the universe :) Conspiracy’s are hard to keep secret. escpecially since the advent of things like OK magazine who will pay the janitor $50,000 to spill the beans. Get over it kids, we’ve been to the moon. Few accomplishments stack up to this since, but it did happen.

      • JC says:

        I am going to make this my standard reply!

      • Jordan says:

        There is no more apt name for you than your choice of “Moron”. You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

  22. Hooper says:

    Have you ever thought that they put the layzer on a satilight WE HAVE NEVER BEEN TO THE MOON GET OVER IT.

    • Mark S says:

      Um, wow the ability of those like you to ignore all scientific evidence to believe what you will amazes me, I thought I was stubborn in my beliefs but you have me beat by miles, I almost admire your almost unimaginable ability to believe that which is proven false.

      • John Earl says:

        The beauty is, that you can’t scientifically prove something DIDN’T happen. How convenient. But someday, someone will go to the very spot on the moon where we supposedly left a ton of junk; and if it is not one of our guys, look out. Will the Chinese keep our little secret?

        • lolwut says:

          If there really is an American flag on the moon, the Chinese could bring back and auction it on eBay.

    • Moron says:

      You have never put your message on something which the moron believers call the Internet where imaginary people can exchange crazy messages at the speed of light. We have never invented the Internet – get over it.

      • Jordan says:

        We never invented the Internet…which means this website doesn’t exist. OK.

    • Max says:

      Your ability to spell reflects your ability to reason I would suggest

  23. Wallah Yahweh Boo Boo says:

    Those of us born before before 1999 know for a fact that the first time the moon landing was ever mentioned was when it was declassified in 1999. We also know that even the Cronkite broadcasts are fake. Similarly, the Vietnam war was a hoax propagated solely to support deficit spending. There is no polio vaccine, btw, and Nixon was most certainly never president.

    THE INTERNET: A place where fools can meet to discuss and reaffirm their beliefs.

    • JohnJay60 says:

      And I like the Saturday Night Live theory that Reagan believed he was filming a movie, and reading from a script, during his years as President …

    • seven says:

      I Was born 1959 and watched every moon landing…so everyone who was in on the “fake” stayed silent did they? secrets always get out All of the “fake film crew” and people who processed the film kept silent did they? NO..it would be way too many people to keep quiet, and no …threatening their family wouldn’t work for all of them, people blab over years. Get over it people man went to the moon, perhaps the nuts should join the bleaters who say man couldn’t have built the pyramids or stone henge.

  24. Emilia Lorio says:

    Hi!

    I chose episode 104 to do my assignment for my psychology class. The moon foot print is interesting to me. What is the psychology behind that is out there for me, lol ! Who would ever thought that had to do anything with psychology beats me. Well, it is an assignment for psychogy, Whatever, it still is something that would be good to know.

  25. Brad says:

    Oh my god. will you conspiracy theorists shut the hell up? did they not say in the article that the astronauts put reflectors on the moons you can bounce lasers off of? Forget all the supposed video evidence you say is faked. forget it. none of that matters if there are reflectors on the moon. the experiment to prove those reflectors are there has been done by THOUSANDS of people, all over the world. how did those reflectors get there if astronauts never got there? explain that, you conspiracy theorists. explain that.

    • John Earl says:

      Right, placing a reflector on the moon (easy and small payload) proves that we delivered a huge payload and brought it back. Please.

    • bobby says:

      Hey Brad you ever think they could of just sent probes out to the moon to place the reflectors out there? i guess not just because we put stuff on the moon doesnt say we were there, i watched a video in sociology on the conspiracy video and myth busters dont explain why there isnt any types of stars in the sky in any of the pictures

      • brian says:

        if they placed the reflectors on the moon remotely then the probe would need to make a very soft delicate landing….but u conspiracy theorist clame that cant be done….manned or unmanned, there must have been (an impossible, acording to ct’s) a soft landing.

      • Feek says:

        There’s no stars because of exposure times and shutter speeds. This really is the stupidest of all hoax claim “proofs” because any photographer on Earth can show you why you’re wrong.

  26. Guy says:

    im a project on this being real can anyone give me a heads up to explain why there wasnt a crater under apollo 11?

    • rsduhamel says:

      The exhaust from the lander’s engine was spread-out so that there were only a few pounds per square inch of lunar surface. Just enough to blow some of the dust away.

      • bobby says:

        why wasnt there any stars in the sky? in any of the pictures?

        • Adam says:

          Because the light from stars is incredibly dim. The light illuminating the astronauts is incredibly bright — it’s daylight. A camera exposure short enough to not overexpose the astronauts and LEM would not capture any starlight.

          But don’t take my word for it — you won’t take anyone’s word for it, because you are an idiot — test it yourself. Go outside at night with your camera. Get down low and frame a picture of someone, aiming up to capture the sky. Turn on your camera flash to replicate the sun’s light on the astronauts, and take a picture. You won’t capture any stars (assuming you camera is not set to “night portrait” mode or the equivalent fill-flash setting).

  27. Josh says:

    There wasn’t a crater because there wasn’t enough thrust to blow a hole in the moon and because the gravity is lower the Eagle lifted off.

  28. sam says:

    wow your really smart aren’t you? first off it cost loads of money to send humans to the moon and secondly if we have already been there several times why would we need to go again? the moon is just dust and rock. it would be a waste of money, time and effort.

    • lolwut says:

      So it only took 6 trips to ascertain that is was all a ridiculous waste of time, money & effort? Interesting.

  29. Roguetrooper says:

    A Saturn V rocket plus launch in 1969 cost $185 million USD. 8 Saturn V rockets where launched (Apollo 10 – 17) not counting Apollo 9 as it did not leave earth orbit. 8 x 185 = 1480. Total cost of the Apollo program as reported to congress in 1973 was $23.9 Billion USD (at 2005 prices that would be $170 Billion USD) and the lives of 3 men.
    Why spend $23.9 Billion USD on getting to the moon if you intend to fake it? Certainly it would have been cheaper to fake it.
    Although the Russians at the time denied having their own Moon program the fact is that did. It was called the Luna program and it was a unmanned program. In fact their probe Luna 9 was the first man made object to land on the moon and send back data. in 1970 they launched Luna 17 and carried a small robot lunar rover called Lunokhod 1.

    So the Russians had the means to confirm if NASA had gone to the moon as early as 1970.
    It is cheaper to fake the moon landings so if it was faked where did all that money go?

    With all the evidence out there the rational mind can only conclude that MAN WENT TO THE MOON!

    • John Earl says:

      Fact is, all that proves is that we spent the money and sent some guys into orbit.

  30. dave says:

    The lasers bouncing off reflectors in no way prove men have walked on the moon. If a rover can crawl on mars, why can’t a piece of metal be placed on the moon. I am not saying that have, or have not walked on the moon, but making an argument in favor based on the fact that there is a reflector on the moon is a poor choice. If you can throw a rock across a bridge that doesn’t mean you can jump over it. The rock it there you can see it! So what did you place it there or throw it there, it being there doesn’t prove anything it doesn’t evan suggest it. Its a horrible point to raise if you are a believer.

    • bobby says:

      agreed just because the reflectors are there dosnt mean anything

    • philthy says:

      so if i understand your analogy of the river, you believe NASA “threw” some reflectors onto the moon’s surface in the hope that they may reflect a laser light shown from earth? interesting viewpoint. next time you see your river, try throwing a very tiny mirror onto the other side then come back at night and try to find it with a small torch. And try to find a river that is several hundred meters wide to truly reproduce the vast distances were all talking about here. After you get home, please then find a better analogy because this one fails.

      • huh? says:

        You don’t really understand retro-reflectors very well do you?

    • Jordan says:

      Mars is much farther away than the Moon. The reason we sent a machine to Mars is because we’re not able to send a human there yet. The Moon is a lot closer to Earth, and we made it there. Shut up and get your head wrapped around it already.

  31. Kester says:

    So I gather the moon is a theory. No science or pictures or physical evidence can be introduced with out challenge and ridicule.This seems to be evolution and god theories. You can re-right or change the evidence to read as you please and make into fact your argument. Us humans sure seem to have no limit on creating realities and trying to push it off on others as reality endlessly. My father believed no moon and I being taught in school it happened. My problem is I never took the time to research due to my limited scientific training I have to go a little slower. I imagine since I found a controversy that questions our great American achievement I will see.

  32. rsduhamel says:

    At the time of the Apollo missions my buddies and I were of were building model airplanes, model rockets, telescopes and such. We were practicing amateur astronomy and astrophotography and taking high school science and physics classes. We never doubted that we put men on the moon because we knew that all the claims of the Apollo program were consistent with rocketry, Newtonian physics, celestial mechanics and everything else we were intimately familiar with. I personally saw Apollo 13 through a 10-inch telescope on its way to the moon. Only a couple of hours later another amateur astronomer photographed the explosion.

    Now, explain to me why I should believe a bunch of people who can’t explain the difference between mass and weight, or the difference between ionizing radiation of non-ionizing radiation when they say the Saturn V couldn’t carry enough fuel to get to the moon or that the astronaughts would have died passing through the Van Allen belts? Why should I even listen to some guy in the desert living in a trailer full of cats when he demonstrates that a five-dollar rubber glove won’t work in a vacuum? Do you really think that NASA used rubber gloves from the nearest hardware store for their space suits or actually pressurized the space suits to full atmospheric pressure? No stars in the photographs? Guess what? I have photographed stars. It is very difficult to get images of stars with any sun-lit object in the same picture. Why do you think astronomers tend to stay home except on moonless nights?

    I can’t prove that we went to the moon but I haven’t seen one iota of evidence that is inconsistent with us having gone there.

    • rsduhamel says:

      BTW, before someone says it would be impossible to see an Apollo spacecraft on the way to the moon through a small telescope, it’s not. Someone in a network of amateur radio operators, who were also amateur astronomers. had spotted the spacecraft and broadcast the coordinates to the rest. I was with a group of amateur astronomers that included one of the amateur radio operators. The spacecraft appeared as an occasional faint, barely visible flash through the telescope. Actually there were six objects visible. They were the Apollo spacecraft complex, the S-IVB stage of the Saturn V and four panels shrouded the lunar module before it was attached to the command module.

  33. The Floorist says:

    My friend and I are both 47 year-old skeptics on the ‘manned’ lunar landings. We both were young children at that time and remember the events quite lucidly. The recent NASA Mars program failed at its first attempt to land a probe on Mars and the second attempt at “bouncing” a probe was successful to a point. I still have the National Geographic issue detailing the Mars probe’s excursion and the photos are stunning to say the least. It would be difficult to honestly say the Mars probe was a hoax because the technology and evidence is irrefutable, unlike the lunar landings videos and pictures from 40 years ago which bear as much circumspect evidence as there is undeniable truth. Moon rocks, coincidentally, have been shown to be identical to earth rocks. Saying those rocks are from the moon becomes a moot point.
    Obviously our NASA shuttle program has just recently been scuttled for budgetary and compulsory reasons. Why? It’s clear the shuttle program suffered tragic losses and it appears to the casual observer that our technology is still in its infancy to continuously put man in space and safely return without the possibility of disastrous failure. Now NASA is contracting to design and build a new-age jet airplane that will carry a newly designed space shuttle to the outer reaches of our earth’s atmosphere and launch shuttles without using giant rocket thrusters, thus saving a great deal of money, time, equipment and quite likely lives. The new Space Station is really our next giant leap for man-kind and is actually really cool to see streaking across the night sky. I encourage anyone who hasn’t seen it take the time to watch it when it’s scheduled to fly over your part of the country.
    My argument for the falsifying of manned lunar landings is best defined by this simple question: If the Hubble space telescope can take alarmingly beautiful images of the Mars probe and time lapse its trip along the rim of that giant crater, and photograph incredible nebulae, distant solar systems and other heavenly bodies millions of light years away, why then can the Hubble not show a simple image of an American flag, rover tracks, footprints and other clear pictures of Apollo junk?
    Saying the lens is too small and would need to be 75 meters wide and that it would be a waste of time to aim the Hubble at the moon is about as believable as dust settling everywhere BUT on the LEM. Any telescopic picture I can find of the Apollo junk left behind is blurry and in some cases appears to be superimposed, and quite simply isn’t as undeniable as a satellite image of my friggin license plate.

    I’m not saying man didn’t put crap on the moon, I’m just saying I doubt man actually walked on the moon.

    • Max says:

      Your bringing Hubble into this is an interesting choice. There are simple calculations you can do when you know the pixel size in a camera and the aperture of the lens. From that you can calculate what the smallest object is that is still resolvable at a given distance. From that you can see that something on the moon would need to be metres across to illuminate one pixel, yet the stuff Hubble sees is millions of kilometres which is why it can be seen. Do the math, it will surprise you.

    • TI says:

      “Moon rocks, coincidentally, have been shown to be identical to earth rocks. Saying those rocks are from the moon becomes a moot point.”

      Fail. Lunar samples show no sign of hydrous alteration products, meaning they haven’t been in contact with water. Ever. When you consider that approximately 72 percent of the entire planet is covered in a body of water with an average depth of 3790 meters (about 2.35 miles)that effin’ incredible. Even meteorites are affected by this.

      Further studies show that they undervent high velocity impacts against a body with no atmosphere, which kind of rule out ol’ Terra, and the samples are roughly 200 MILLION years older than the oldest known terrestrial rock.

      Try again.

      As for the Hubble telescope, the resolution limits it to details no smaller than 60-75 yards across, and given that the lunar landing module itself was 14 feet wide and the landing gear span was a hair short of 30 feet it’s just too small for the Hubble telescope to detect.

      It’s not about believing, it’s physics. If you want to get technical the lunar landing module doesn’t reflect enough light for the Hubble telescope to be able to detect it, and your logic is roughly the equivalent of me placing a thumbtack on a football goal, walk to the other end of the field and then claim it isn’t there because my eyes can’t detect it. It’s there alright, but due to the physical limitations of my eyes I can’t see it. Same with the Hubble telescope.

      And I would really like to see some sources on that claim about Hubble being able to take pictures of the Mars PROBE.

      Also, I’m having trouble grasping the sheer ignorance you display when you can’t see the difference between taking pictures of objects that span LIGHTYEARS across, as opposed to something that could be considered a speck of dust in comparison.

      As a footnote: Most of the pictures you get from space are enhanced in some way. Does that mean you’ll now stop believing there are nebulas in the sky?

    • Aladdin says:

      Like Max says, it is interesting that you’re bringing Hubble into this. If you’ve been keeping up with science news recently, you’d know that Hubble’s images are so broad that it cannot detect the existence of large planets, let alone a probe or some footprints. It has only been in recent times with the launch of the Kepler telescope that planets can be seen and analysed, which is why there has been so much “planet news” since 2010. Another point, Hubble uses an enormous fixed lens and several smaller lenses and mirrors, and is focused so that it can see light that originated 13+ billion years ago. Hubble pretty much defines the edge of the observable universe. Something that is around 1.3 light-seconds away, is highly reflective, and is moving vastly in perspective would probably be avoided by the telescope rather than targeted. Even if the huge amounts of light didn’t overexpose the camera into blindness, it would probably be impossible to focus the lens to take a good photo in any timely fashion. As for the satellite images referenced that can see your licence plate so clearly, they exist because the satellites taking these photos have been sent up to take good quality photographs for practical uses. The moon, however, has pretty much been established to be a whole lot of nothing. Everything special about the moon pertains to its lack of possession, except for its mass which has been the biggest moon-planet ration in our solar system ever Pluto was kicked out of the planet club. If you want a satellite to zoom up to the moon and orbit it to take a few good photos, then by all means build one. The whole process of putting people on the moon in the first place had little practical value – it would have been easier and cheaper to just use robots to do everything – but it had the potential for huge political and sociological gains that outweighed the costs in the 1960-80′s. Now, however, we know more about the structure of the moon than of our own planet, and you’d be hard pressed to find a sponsor that cared enough about disproving a controversy to spend at least tens of millions on it. We humans have passed the moon benchmark and left it behind us, and, frankly, I think too much importance is being placed on what did or didn’t happen there. What matters is that we could do it. and we could do it again if we wanted to, and now the world’s smarter because of it. Thank You.
      - Aladdin

    • J.Gunawardena says:

      The problem with you people today is you just imagine, or speculate. My advise to you is: read, study about the US space program. There are tons of material on Apollo if you are interested.Read man read how the Lunar lander evolved In the Grumman facility & how they tested its engines. However these are scientific material & you must have a scientific mind in order to get interested.

  34. IronMaiden says:

    Moon landing was an ilusion.
    Life is just an ilusion.

  35. mooonnn says:

    The overall problem is, this was cold war, russians have been working on moon project for some time prior to america, and we all know that who ever wins the moon race will win the cold war, and suddenly america who started later can amazingly be the first to sucessefully land a man on the moon? Cmon? Besides history doesn’t help america, your government has been faking events and distorting realities even before tv exists. Look ate 9/11 for example, man your history has to many hoax, it’s hard to believe in anything you make :/

  36. JD says:

    I think they need to bust 1 more, Van Allen Radiation belt.

    in 1998 we flew the space shuttle 350 miles above our atmosphere, our astronauts started experiencing streaking lights and seeing “shooting stars” with their eyes closed. This was affects from radiation penetrating their body. NOW in space the radiation is 10x more dangerous than on earth because of cosmic radiation which can rip tear your DNA . Now please explain how we flew 25,000 miles THROUGH this radiation in 1969, when in 1998 we could only be 650 miles from where it starts and started experiencing problems?

    tldr: Van Allen radiation belt starts at 1,000 miles out of our atmosphere and ends 25,000 miles (every mission in history has been UNDER this 1,000 miles, usually under 200 to be safe EXCEPT the Apollo missions.)

    • TI says:

      You really wanna go there? Alright …

      1 – The Van Allen belts are mostly made up of charged particles, socalled ionizing radiation, from wich the metal hull of the Apollo gave excellent protection. Hint: Think faraday cage.

      2 – They passed the Van Allen belts in just four hours, thereby minimizing exposure.

      3 – They chose a trajectory that would expose the astronauts to the least amount of radiation possible.

      4 – The astronauts actually did show signs of being exposed to radiation, something they wouldn’t have if they had stayed “safe” in low earth orbit.

      Wanna try again?

  37. kp says:

    if you werent dumb. you could clearly see nasa is lieing

    • Adam says:

      If you weren’t dumb, you would clearly be able to use apostrophes and capitals properly. If you weren’t dumb would be able to spell “lying”. If you weren’t astonishingly dumb, you would know you were dumb and would choose to use spell check.

      Q.E.D.

      • Jordan says:

        You tell him!

  38. kenneth huber says:

    i have 4 original NASA slides ( glass with silver binding the glass) marked by nasa these are the real deal, interested?

  39. twerpson says:

    I’ve been studying the moon landings recently and concluded that they happened on phobos not our moon and we were assisted by extraterrestrials.Prove that wrong you septics!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • philthy says:

      I could prove it wrong, but getting those aliens to talk is really difficult.

  40. Colin says:

    All you conspiracy theorists need to have your heads examined. If all this was fake, how exactly did the equipment get on the moon? Oh ya, and those tracks from the land rovers, oh and the laser to measure distances (time of light travel to and from)?

    Are these fake also? wait, maybe someone painted them in the sky between us and the moon – just in your viewing areas?

  41. HAHAHAHHA says:

    The best part about all these comments —
    The fact that everyone who talks about all the scientific evidence out there / they have read proving the moon landing true, when their probably God lovers who have little concept of what scientific evidence actually is // or science in general.

    The biggest thing that puzzles me from the moon landings, the radiation in space / van allen radiation belt are in deadly doses. The technology used to protect the astronauts from radiation were so meager and pathetic. And yet none of them died from this deadly radiation.

    • kol says:

      You do know there are Christian scientist right? If you were in anyway intelligent you would know understanding science would further our love of God. You’re a close minded fool.

  42. Cosmored says:

    The proof that the moon missions were faked is crushing.

  43. Craig says:

    Crushing evidence against the landing. Right. Here’s a little evidence for. 852 pounds of moon rock/dust. Carbon dated by AUSTRALIAN scientists to be 200 million years older than the oldest earth rocks. As for the radiation, feel free to scientifically read away on this one cause there is NOT too much radiation. That is merely a function of length of exposure.

    http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html

  44. Fruitloop says:

    I would like to thank you all as you have helpped with my science project.

  45. Martin Carrier says:

    The gullibility of these ‘conspiracy theorists’ never fails to astound me… then irritate, and finally enrage me!

    No amount of argument, no matter how factual, documented or reasoned…. will ever change them. So, I calm down, sit back and remember this quote:
    “Against stupidity… the Gods themselves, contend in vain.”

    • you're angry says:

      You sound very angry.
      Anger is the flower of stupidity sir. I notice a lot of attack from all the people on this thread that believe America went to the moon.
      I’m not certain but I do entertain the theories since they have been put forward by so many people in my lifetime.
      No need for anger though.

  46. Victor Wilburn says:

    Mr. Armstrong’s passing reminded me of this BS hoax. I am sad to see from some comments here that people still believe this. For those folks, if you still have half a brain tucked away somewhere in your head and can follow reason, logic, and facts, the web site does an excellent and thorough job debunking all of the so-called evidence against the moon landing. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

  47. Proof - O - Matic says:

    The above post is absolute proof of alien life on earth, at least the internet. Which proves to any breathing human that the moon landing was in fact a sweet reality. Follow the logic trail…Humans are the most intelligent beings…Aliens are infiltrating Earth…Humans have played golf on the Moon. Simple so deal with it. Humans Rule!

  48. peter says:

    I can not deny or accept landing is true because I can not imagine how the lander is shoot out of orbit of moon like on the earth we use rocket. If we can easily send lander off moon why does not we use this skill in earth to save powerful rocket….

    • R says:

      Earth’s gravity is stronger then the moon, so it would take more energy (ie rocket power) to launch an object out of Earth’s atmosphere than it would if you wanted to launch in off the moon :)

      • John R says:

        The other reasons for requiring much less energy for moon take off were the much lower orbit than for earth (8.5 miles), a much lighter payload (the command module was much heavier than the landing module but only had to take off from earth) and also no atmosphere creating resistance at speed.

  49. Jorge A says:

    Man has not go back to the moon because moon people paid a lot of interplanetary money to stop these expeditions. That money is kept by the Illuminati and invested on Vatican Bank. Will be used to convince Martians not to invade us, actually Curiosity is the message courier for them. The Templars are behind all this.

    Man, it is so obvious!!!! :-)

  50. Martin Hogbin says:

    Try getting one of the moon landing conspiracy crazies to tell you what they think actually happened and you will not even get a cogent conspiracy theory.

  51. Cassie W says:

    Hello, I have to write a paper on the Apollo 11 Going to the Moon Conspiracy Theory for my astronomy class. I personally believe that we did go to the moon, however I have 2 questions and would greatly appreciate a response. 1) Why would all of the video footage be controlled by the us government? 2) Why do we never see the faces of the astronauts?

    • Feek says:

      1) The footage is controlled by the government because they own it. That would be like asking why your car is “controlled” by you.
      2) We don’t see faces of the astronauts because they have helmets on. In the video and pictures inside the various vehicles, we do see their faces.

      • seven says:

        actually later on you were able to see the faces

  52. Nico says:

    It´s easy to disbelief. I suggest those who think it`s a hoax read more about the whole space program sparkled off by Kennedy in 1961 till 1972.
    It was not just Apollo 11s Armstrong and Aldrin in the moon , they did 6 lunar landing, one pre-landing simulation above the moon (Apollo 10), a couple of moon orbitings testing gear.
    Apollo 11 was the most famous, they`ve only walked in the moon for 2 1/2 hours, by
    Apollo 17 the crews spent like 3 days each in the moon per mission ,there are thousands of proofs.
    It`s not Bush and Iraq`s weapons or Bin Laden`s storytelling.Nasa may have tweaked some pics, but not altering the truth.
    Most major hoaxers are Ufologists-evangelists like , making money out of book deals and conferences.
    The Space program is full of facts. The 60s were a period of cutting edge technology going to the max e.g. the jet engine used today, the Concorde was conceived in the 60s – passenger planes never broke its speed -and mostly, money, and why they didn`t return to the moon ever since.
    In the 60`s any country`s GPD wealth was poured into productive projects (or wars) , today more than half of money created anywhere goes to the Financial-Speculation sector, mostly unproductive, gambling,
    money making more money with no effort, and makes this adventurous projects
    utterly `nonsense expensive`. But next robot to the moon surface will be sent by India next year, probaly China will do it.Manned missions from US only if it`s tourist business ( Aldrin is in this biz ) that`s why private companies are testing the waters to send millionaires to the moon.
    Bottom line, you may hate the US, but they DID go to the moon.

  53. Clare says:

    So we did land man on the moon.

  54. Mario Lemolle says:

    Thanks for the video.
    I´m teacher of biology, and I need the video to my students.
    They think the mission apolo 11 is false.
    With this material I teach the true.

  55. Sidney Rchard Nixon says:

    There are the knockers and the believers,this has been the case thro-ought mans existance. Whether it be man on the moon or religion, just to name a few.
    America, well they invented heroes, like Superman, who some even believe exists, Batman, spiderman, the list goes on.
    If you don’t have a heroe, invent one!Richard Nixon also had a fmous saying,
    “Fellow American’s, trust me!
    It has been 43 years since the so called event and billions has been spent on space travel since then, surely like their Wild West a outpost could have been set up to minimize the costs of leaving the earth’s gravitational pull, still as a layman, mine is not to reason why, just believe what they tell me.To clarify one more thing, the Wright brothers were not the first to fly a manned craft, look it up!

  56. Richard Robert says:

    ah, plot theories… one simple question: don’t you think that if anything had been faked, the Russians wouldn’t have taken the pleasure of exposing the US? This was the cold war and Space was one of the main issues for competition between the two blocks. – But – stupid am I! the Russians were parts of the plot!

    • Soul Leister says:

      … like no one has been paid to keep a secret before? Or died mysteriously in an accident to shut others up? And that’s air your breathing, Neo???

      • seven says:

        So Russia and China and the UK were all paid to keep a secret?? not to mention everyone else following them..Russia was the enemy of the west so you think they could be paid off?

  57. Soul Leister says:

    Fact: some photos show landers with AND WITHOUT flag cases on the lunar lander’s ladder… its not removable (it can be opened but not removed… not tools on the moon to do that) and that proves NASA pictures are faked. Clearly, there is a set on earth that they can (and have made) modifications too… in order to correct their “in the can before they launched” footage and pictures released and published in books and magazines (the net is easy to replace original material when revealed it was in error, pity they have only done a halfassed job to date). And that calls the mars rover pictures into question too (notice the distant hill looks just like the appollo backgrounds just not gray)… and there is that statue of the pointing mermaid carved into rock that was on all the local news, released by nasa… someone didn’t get a pay raise and didn’t scrub the artifact prior to distribution.

    • seven says:

      Where are these photos?

  58. Matt says:

    You realize you used NASA’s vacuum which is the only way to replicate the moon floor, and you used NASA’s technology that replicates the gravity with ZERO G. You pretty much just proved what they could have used to fake it. How do you know they didn’t make a moon set on a Zero G plane. Then used the space suits in their vacuum with the flag…learn to think outside your closed views.

    You mythbusters are such idiots, you are so narrow minded and believe everything that you see. You realize just because something is on the moon, doesn’t mean we took it up their by hand. Busted my ass, they could have easily sent that equipment up there, just like they send satellites.

    Not to mention if we really had other equipment up there, why aren’t there pictures of the moon in detail or video? We can see into the beginning of time, but we have no photos of the moon or any video that shows any section as clear as my house.

    I would have believed you more if you had that telescope take a picture of the equipment on the moon, cause for all you know, there is a satellite intercepting your moon coordinates and feeding you the information you want to see.

    I don’t believe in any side cause I am a scientist, but I am also not dumb enough to fall for your “busted” moon landing, cause you only proved your dumb “situations”, when the answers are always in front of you.

    Why don’t you do a video on how they could have used what used to fake it?? I mean you were able to replicate everything they did using their technology, so why don’t you do real science for once, and not this fake crap that is not even entertaining.

    • seven says:

      Tell me where the vacuum chamber that is the size of a football field is? because that’s the size you would need…

    • Jordan says:

      How in the world do you get an entire realistic Moon set inside a Zero G plane?!

    • J.Gunawardena says:

      Dear Matt,
      Having read everything you posted here. I can believe only one thing.You are not & You’ll never be a scientist.Its crystal clear & doubtless like all the moon landings.

  59. Matt says:

    JP I love the show, but I always think your conclusions of the overall myth’s to be bleak like you never look at the whole picture. I mean you did good proving that the information given by NASA matches what would really happen. I guess no one can prove it, unless you go up their. Even then it still doesn’t prove that men actually brought that stuff up there. Even marks can be done by machines.

    • J.Gunawardena says:

      Dear Matt. Having read most of the absurd comments here, I’m sure about one thing. Suppose in the near future Russian or Chinese craft lands on the Moon & takes back crystal clear photographs of all the Apollo artifacts. Hoaxers wouldn’t still believe it.Let alone american made telescope trained on moon.See what happened to LRO photos. to them they’re ‘Photoshop’ed.Its like trying to convince a mad man in an asylum that he is mad.

  60. Cosmored says:

    MythBusters was just an attempt at damage-control by professional sophists.

    • seven says:

      No damage control, no one cares what conspiracy nuts say…I mean you could say that it was impossible for man to fly in a craft made of wood and paper then in a few short years be flying in jets….oops im sorry a nut has covered that…”the aliens gave us the technology”

  61. fnnftft says:

    the moon landing was ssooooo FAKE

  62. Bert says:

    Why would the government fake it, even if they could? If the U.S. were going to hide something hide the Vietnam war, or three mile island. The Russians believe the USA landed on the moon. If they thought it was fake, they would certainly say so.

    I believe I live near the Atlantic Ocean. I enter what I believe is my zip code into Google maps, and it shows that I am near the Atlantic. I drive east and see a lot of water. But I cannot prove that it is the Atlantic.

    When I was in high school I watched what I believe was the moon landings. In museums I believe I see spacecraft, but it could be props.

    I guess in the end a person may choose to believe what they want. Why not believe the best explanation on what one observes, and give the next person the benefit of doubt?

  63. Vanderkerken Luc says:

    Well, to all those low Apollo-conspiracy-clowns, I would say: time is on our side as technics evolve as the years go by. One day there will be rich tourists going to the moon to look at those ‘old’ Apollo equipment for entertainment. Of course your hoax theory set-up is worth the money you make from it. You absolutely sell everything and remain as low as those who deny the holocaust. But remember: time is on whose’s side? (There are already the Chinese orbiting around the moon and taking pictures of all Apollo landing sites.)

  64. Muikki says:

    Even though I am a true fan of mythbusters, I have to say that it’s ridiculous to think that their results are always solid facts. It is after all a TV show. They are not scientist, they are people who have carriers in sepcial effects (as it is said in the intro). The ways in which they test myths are often very limited and sometimes they leave out some very important point of views from their experiments. As I said, I do love the show, but for someone to use the shows findings as an argument for something as huge as the moon landing conspiracy, is simply stupid. Media is what it is and I’ve personally grown to know that you most certainly shouldn’t believe everything you see on TV. I don’t take sides on the moon landing issue, because I believe that pretty much anything is possible – it could have happened but there is a chance it didn’t. The truth won’t rise from looking at the pictures and testing the foot prints. There are people who know the truth and I hope that someday they will prove once and for all the moon landings to be true. Or false.

  65. Your mom says:

    I think you are gay

  66. Gary says:

    No stars in the sky! What is wrong with you people! What happens when the sun is out on earth? Do we see stars In the sky? What happens when the sun is out on the moon? Do we see stars in the sky? No we don’t, because it’s day time. It’s just because there’s no atmosphere on the moon the sky is black. Therefore it gives the appearance that Its night time. But it’s actually morning. There is no stars in the sky because the sun is just too bright. It’s as simple as that. And if you doubt what I say, just look at any news footage of astronauts working on the space station or the shuttle. There is never any stars in the sky.

    • seven says:

      Exactly right…and for all those that bleat on that the astronauts were “on wires”…well I have DVD sets of hours of footage on the moon and can see no way they can be moving free “on wires” for long periods of time. Also I have processed the video and there are no wires….one conspiracy nut maintains the aerial on the back pack is a wire holding the astronaut up

  67. jose says:

    queridos caçadores de mitos e posivel remar um carro na encente

  68. Jim says:

    I was in college at the time of the second landing. I remember the camera panning the horizon and the controller said “Get the camera off that”, and they quickly moved the camera away. I’ve never seen or heard anything since. My wife, who was in high school, remembers it as well. What did the camera see?

    • J.Gunawardena says:

      The camera saw you were lying.

  69. harry neel says:

    I do not know if moon landing was real or not, but truly everything you showed truly only proves that if you could get the same results in a studio or in a lab at NASA, that there is a real possibility that it truly was a hoax pulled off by NASA and the govt., in an attempt to swindle tax payers to believe it was for good . there is no way short of taking a civilian to the moon to collect rocks,sand or other data to compare to what we r to believe to b moon rocks that have not been seen by anyone not connected to govt., or nasa officials. I must say you did prove that NASA could have gotten pictures and all just as you showed

    • Jordan says:

      To quote Adam Savage: “That’s not the point!”

  70. Tan says:

    It’s impossible for the astronauts to have taken such high quality pictures with 0% error margin. The camera’s were attached to their stomachs, the suits cannot look down, nor could the astronaut adjust the focus, illumination (and other parameters) needed to take a 100% perfect photographs. The astronauts were not even trained in photography, yet every shot taken looks professional. You are being lied to.

    • Porky Pig says:

      Tan,

      Is it at all possible, that many more pictures were taken and that only the most “perfect” pictures were released?

      • Jordan says:

        That’s right. There’s an article on Wikipedia that says the exact same thing.

        • J.Gunawardena says:

          Agreed.The other important thing is an Astronaut is not some dumb in the street who was strapped a camera on his midsection.They are highly trained, educated professionals – men of science. Who says they are not trained. They practiced & practiced in astronaut attire with that camera, taking several dozens of pictures until they have perfected their shot.

  71. Paul Davis says:

    Hahahaha, hahahaha.
    There were dozens of countries following every step of the Apollo missions with their own equipment and telescopes. Recent photos from Japanese and China and another lunar orbiter have photographed the landing sites and the stuff they left behind. That’s 3rd party, independent verification that Nasa landed people on the moon. Deal with it.

  72. Islandbern says:

    The Riddle STILL has not been solved…. Replicating something which did not exist… is this an ILLUSION…? What is it about ILLUSIONS which play trickery on the mind of humans. A quote I heard a while ago: “One of the greatest tricks the devil ever produces is making people believe that he did not exist” Most people have had an experience of watching magic tricks and illusionists. Better yet, most people have seen movies… Please someone solve the riddle… the clues are all there… Cheers to ALL

  73. Salad says:

    If they could kill six million Jews over a period of several years during the Holacaust, and people all over Europe watched them disappear, didn’t know and kept quiet, I wouldn’t rule out anything. That happened in modern history, we had cars, phones, airplanes, tv, radio, etc…it wasn’t all that long ago.

  74. David Camp says:

    Ye right, if you watch episode 104, these fools acomplish the very same lies that nasa accomplished – using an artifical light. So naturally the results will be the same. I wonder who pays for those fools to produce these episodes – sorry guys but YOU ARE BUSTED! go fool the uneducated, subservant worshipers who are unable to think for themselves!!!

    • Jordan says:

      That’s not the point. The theory behind those photos allegedly having been faked wasn’t because of an artificial light source instead of the Sun, it was because of a secondary light source that could not exist on the Moon. They were able to prove those photos were possible using a single light source, disproving the theories about the photos being faked.

      Besides, those tests took place in a dark room environment where there cannot be any sunlight, which is why they had to use an artificial light source.

      Go get yourself an education, and come back when you are able to think for yourself.

  75. Frank Orbeta says:

    This is easy, do it one more time. If NASA had the guts and tech to do it in the 60s it should be extremely easy to repeat it now with one million times better technology. The computations are there, the experience is there…it should be a no brainer to send a crew with the latest equipment and do new research and take pitures and so forth…BUT, since it is NOT TRUE, they never went and cannot, sending a new mission is impossible. PS.. at least send a freaking robot with a cheap camcorder…pathetic.

    • J.Gunawardena says:

      Why should we go again? Just to prove we went there 43 years ago?.Who’d pay the expenses? We were there for 06 times & have gathered knowledge. Now NASA looks beyond moon & thinking of sending men to Mars.

  76. Mike LVNV says:

    When we were kids we had the tooth fairy. We also had Santa Claus among other tales. Today, as grownups, we have the tales of WW1, WW2, Vietnam, JFK, 911, and least I forget, we have the Moon Landing.
    And then there were the 3 bears.

  77. Putin says:

    Everything is a lie. Moloch runs the show from his office @ the UN.

  78. Ken Robinson says:

    Joderell Bank tracked Apoollo 13 decent to land on the moon.they still have the evidence.I believe humans landed on the moon.

  79. Ken Robinson says:

    Sorry error Apollo 11 was tracked by Joderell Bank

    • J.Gunawardena says:

      No, actually they tracked 13 also

  80. Jordan says:

    Here’s an argument I think will PROVE that we went to the moon.

    You know that photo they looked at where an astronaut was clearly visible in the Lunar Module’s shadow when, supposedly, he should have been as black as the shadow? Conspiracy theorists believe that the only possible explanation for that photo is that the astronaut was lit up by a fill light, meaning the photo was taken in a studio. The MythBusters proved that theory false, that another possible explanation is that this actually did happen on the Moon and that the astronaut is visible because of light reflected off the Moon’s surface.

    But what would that photo have looked like if there actually was a fill light? It would indeed have lit the astronaut up, but if that was the reason why, the fill light would have to have lit up nothing else except the astronaut, i.e. the fill light would have to be astronaut-shaped.

    However, there is no such thing as an astronaut-shaped fill light. The only alternative would have been a round fill light, which would have also lit up multiple spots on the Moon underneath the Lunar Module, yet these spots do not appear in the photo. Therefore, that photo could not have been taken in a studio. It had to have been taken on the Moon.

    Now, before you start complaining that they could have used some opaque outline made of something like cardboard to get this effect, I’d like to point out that not only is Buzz Aldrin visible, but also the parts of the Lunar Module on the same side where the shadow is cast, and the ladder he appears to be climbing. That would have to be one impressively detailed outline in order to light up the ladder, and even if it was, you’d still see light spill between the rungs.

    So, conspiracy theorists, what do you have to say to that? Why don’t you just get it through your thick heads already: those moon landings really did happen.

  81. Gato Negro says:

    The ignorance is almost too painful to endure! The “Sea of Tranquility,” where the lunar landing supposedly occurred, is in full un-obstructed view, especially when the moon is full. Modern telescope technology can zoom in on a Martian gnat to observe its anus cleaning habits, that is, if there were such a thing. So, just show us the alleged lunar landing site with the flag and debris, all still there and intact, and then supply the location info so we can look for it ourselves. Then many of us doubters can be satisfied that a lunar landing actually did occur in 1969. I suspect (and expect) a search would reveal that a ‘collision event’ hit the landing zone and all that’s left there is a crater .

  82. Tom says:

    Of course the landings were real. It is in all the history books although hoaxers will probably say it’s lies controlled by the evil us government that lies all the time. It’s all do to a lack of knowledge. Most conspiracy theorists are un educated in science moon rocks or physics. Many times people deny what they cannot understand. The moon rocks are unlike any rocks on earth so the person saying their are earth rocks similar was wrong. I think a lot of foreigners lack knowledge of how this country works saying lies like we caused 9/11 and nasa lies and government lies all the time. Many people do not know the full story so they jump to conclusions and visit conspiracy websites filled with misinformation.

Leave a Reply

(required)