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.


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.


  1. bill says:

    your light source was studio lighting , unlike sunlight ,that was the result of the differant angles of the objects ,all your configuing confurms the faked landings ,common sense would tell you after 40 years there would have been several milatary bases and a burger king up there.nasa will never admit it hoaxed us.

    • Aaron says:

      The light source (studio lighting) is enough like sunlight for this purpose. If you disagree, please explain how exactly studio lighting would create shadows of differing angles while sunlight would not?

      Why does common sense tell you that there would be military bases and a restaurant on the moon by now? That’s not sensible at all. Think about it. A military base on the moon would have no strategic value. And when was the last time you were driving around on the moon hungry?

      • Rachel says:

        I don’t agree at all with the theory that the moon landings were faked. However, in answer to your question, it should be very obvious that a light source that is nearby is not at all “enough like sunlight” for the purposes of demonstrating that shadows created by a point source (sunlight) would be capable taking on differing angles, attributable solely to the topography of the ground. If you doubt the fundamental difference between those two sources of light for this purpose, stand in a room that has artificial lighting with a friend, with both of you either side of the ceiling light. You’ll notice that each of your shadows points in opposite direction to one another, directly away from the source of the light (which will be above and between you), despite the floor being completely flat (thereby ruling out the possibility that the topography of the floor has anything to do with the effect). Try getting your shadows to point in opposite directions on a flat surface using sunlight, and let me know how that works out for you…

        • Glenn says:

          You are forgetting one thing. Their first attempt on the show using a flat terrain DID show parallel shadows from the artificial light source, just like the sun would. I tried an experiment with a standard ceiling light in my house and found that at approximately the distance they had between light and table, the shadows from items at the height of their models looked parallel. You can argue all you like that it this would be impossible in theory, but they showed the evidence on screen of what really happens. And regarding your example of being on different sides of the light, surely if two people stood on either side of the sun then their shadows point in different directions. Your example was very silly, and nothing like the circumstances they had on the show.

        • Guy says:

          If you take a wide angle photo, shadows from the Sun will not appear parallel.

        • ATHYRIO says:

          Rachel, sweety, how old are you? And does your mommy know you are playing the computer again?

          • Pinheads says:

            Wow, you guys are funny. There are 4 strong light sources on the surface of the moon. The sun, the reflection of light off the earth, the reflection of the light off the moons surface and the reflection of light off the astronauts themselves. Not to mention the moons dust scattering light at strange angles. All of these light sources are amplified by the lack of atmosphere. That the lighting of the shots is so wild and complex is proof that the landings actually happened.

    • ryan says:

      Several military bases and a burger king? Americans all have one thing in common: they hate paying taxes. The moon landings cost a whole pile of money. Case closed…

      Not only that, but I’m fairly certain the US at that time had a certain sworn enemy (the USSR) that would’ve gladly jumped all over any credible evidence of a faked landing and yet… nothing.

      But, forgetting all of that, once hard science is used, once the numbers involving friction and resistance and tensile strength and the hundreds of variables involved are actually crunched – rather than ignored, as you do – you can see that, while difficult and expensive, the moon landing is doable. The hardest part is in fact getting off the earth and back on it. The moon simple doesn’t have an atmosphere… so why not drop this one and move on to 9/11 or something?

      • cecilia says:

        “The moon landings cost a whole pile of money”. yes, they did! and it was worth Every Single Penny. There’s a million things in everyone’s home that is there as a result of the Apollo Missions.
        every time I hear someone whine about the cost i want to go to that person’s house and rip out all this stuff they have Because of NASA. After All, if they don’t like paying for the missions they don’t deserve the benefits.
        The kind of knowledge and development because of NASA missions is incredibly essential to the health of our economy.

    • Joe Edwards says:

      I think what bill is trying to say regarding the lighting is that the shadows cast by two subjects that are at a significant distance from one another with respect to their distance from a light source will tend to appear non-parallel as compared to those that are cast if the distance between the two subjects is relatively small with respect to their distance to the light source. In other words, a light source that is 20 or 30 feet from two subjects will cause shadows that are significantly less parallel than a light source that is say, ninety three million miles away.

    • ashton says:

      ummmmm bill..dude im 11 and know that the mythbusters are special effects ppl and that they know that the studio light is just like the Moon light or else they wuldnt hav used it-and apparently u hav no common sense thinking a millitary base and crap wuld b on ther…btw im doing a project on this and so im lookin at alot of responses and some of u r very opinionated and dont know wat ur talkin bout while the others i can actually agree with like aaron…first person i saw who i agreed with…and ryan think of paying taxes as u giving ur support to the economy and government and ppl who cant afford things lik health care…yes i know…im 11..but seriously just try thinking about it for awhile and a light bulb will shine!! lol plz dont reply anything nasty…i might not b entirely correct with wat i said

      • Johnny Storm says:

        You don’t seem to think or express yourself like an 11 year old, I know, I work with them every day (I live with one as well). Are you really 11? Regardless, work on your spelling (or use spell check) and don’t us text language; people will take you more seriously. I hope your project turned out well, my students are starting theirs this week. That is why we will be watching this episode of Mythbusters.

        • Greens says:

          What are you talking about? I don’t know this kid but your ignorancebis astounding. How msny 11 year olds are concerned with taxation and healthcare? I can’t even believe you just suggested that.

          • M says:

            Obviously you have never been, had, or seen an 11-year-old. They don’t care about taxation or healthcare, but they do care about Television and stupidity. Television being Mythbusters, Stupidity being Conspiracy theories and you. You wouldn’t even have to do research, you would have to remember what you were like last year.

    • Guy says:

      What was in America 40 yrs after Columbus landed here? Not much. How do you think crossing the Atlantic Ocean compares to landing on the Moon? Common sense tells ME that if it took us 300 years to get a military base and 450 years to get a Burger King it’ll take a lot longer to get them on the Moon.

  2. Bob Dole says:


    What you seem to forget is the availability of transferring resources to these bases and moon burger kings. That is the number one reason why we don’t have anything established there.

    Also, I’m not sure if you have no experience with artificial lighting, because it sounds like it. There are many, MANY ways to create artificial lighting, and even when they turned off the artificial lighting and let direct sunlight in, regardless of how it came it, its direct sunlight focused on a direct point. If it was the lighting that was making different angles, why was it not so in the first picture they took? Act like a real scientist for once and think BEFORE you respond.

    These conspiracy theories that we did not land on the moon were conspiracies placed by pro-communist and Russian sympathizers around the time of the cold war in order to turn more heads to their direction. As with most things, it got passed from generation from generation to the late 70s and 80s era of Anti-Establishment and was used for the same reason, to make people change opinions based on the fact that our government had “lied” to us about it. If NASA really wanted a PR stunt, they would have made a much more outlandish claim of going further than the moon. There is just too much to loose and too little to gain from a fake landing.

    Sorry Theorists, you’ll just have to learn to get attention another way.

    • Joe Edwards says:

      Actually, a real scientist would do the experiment and find (as I stated above) that the distance between two subjects with respect to their distance to the light source makes a HUGE difference in how parallel their shadows are.

      Hold two pencils straight up a foot or so from the lamp on your desk and tell us just how parallel their shadows are.

      It’s not the point whether this affects the first picture or not. The point is that real scientists would be expected to demonstrate some level of integrity by disclosing all areas in which an experiment doesn’t accurately model reality. One would think that a “proof” before the public such as this (and partly paid for by tax dollar) would come with such a disclosure. NASA apparently doesn’t think very highly of its own supporters that they would allow Mythbusters to do this (and don’t even begin to suggest that NASA wasn’t in the driver’s seat so far as the making of this program was concerned…)

      • Peregrine says:

        How stupid are you? Just because Mythbusters does an episode on the moon landing you assume NASA was in the ‘driver’s seat’?

        The Mythbusters ARE real scientists. Just because they are scientists on a TV show doesn’t make them any less trustworthy. Also remember that, to be honest, they probably DID demonstrate exactly what you’re talking about, but the episodes still have to last a certain length, so it probably got cut.

        • JJ says:

          The mythbusters made extensive use of NASA’s facilities, they were hardly going to be allowed to do that if NASA thought they would say anything controversial. Also the mythbusters are interested in entertainment not science, some of their shows are good but in others their proofs aren’t very convincing.

          And for God’s sake don’t go believing everything someone says just because they’re a ‘real scientist’.

  3. John Dee says:

    O.K. Heres a point. There are thousands of photos and video clips of events supposedly taken on the moon. If the landings were faked, those would be the easiest to fake. Conveniently, it was not possible to photograph the stars?, so take our word for it , this is the moon??.
    So given the obvious penchant for photographing and filming just about everything, where the heck are the visual records, of the reconfiguration of the craft after launch, the separation prior to landing on the lunar surface, of manouevering and redocking before returning to Earth? I’m talking about the parts that would be simple to film or photograph , but difficult to fake. Hmmmmn
    Please don’t example the film of the lander approaching the moons surface, or the film of the launch from the surface, those look so hokey it’s a joke. And while we are about it, run it past me again how they managed to locate the mother ship whizzing around the moon, “Here she comes Buzz, lets go, don’t lose sight of her…..we’re gaining?!” Come on guys , have a think.

    • Aaron says:

      Photograph the stars: Why do you say this is convenient? This is actually inconvenient because of nuts like you. If they could fake everything else, do you really think they couldn’t have faked stars? Do you really think they would forget something like this? The bright lunar surface simply caused the camera to have to be adjusted so that the stars are not visible on film. Otherwise, the surface would be washed out. It’s the same effect that happens when you take a photo of a person with the sun behind him. The camera adjusts to the brightest object, the sun, leaving the person in silhouette. If the camera didn’t do that, then the sun would appear washed out in the photo.

      The reason there are no photos of the separation and re-dock – that’s a good question. One thing to remember is that nobody anticipated having to answer to conspiracy nuts, 50 years after the fact, so it could be that these phases of the mission were simply deemed not important enough to capture on film. It could also be that filming these sequences are not so easy as it might seem, because the camera angle would have to be fixed and limited (because you can’t put the camera outside for the entire journey, and you have limited porthole space). So I don’t think it’s proof of a hoax, but I’d also like to know why we haven’t seen video of these phases of any of the missions. Please note though that these would not be hard to fake, so if nasa wanted to fake the mission, you’d think they’d film these phases right?

      Why do you say the existing footage is “hokey?” Can you be more specific?

      You asked how they located the mother ship “whizzing” around the moon. Well, in the same way that the shuttle can dock with ISS. It’s not easy, but it’s just an inertial nav system and some math. You or I couldn’t do it. But these guys are really smart. And the fact that it’s done routinely in Earth orbit should tell you that it’s at least possible around the moon.

      There John, I’ve “had a think.” Your turn.

      • LunarSavvy says:

        I concur. I’d also like to add that, being a professional photographer, your theory as to how the focus adjusts to ambient light sources is entirely accurate. The video and photography taken during the maiden lunar landing was done on the light side of the moon where the sun is reflecting off its surface. It’s been scientifically suggested that stars would not be as vivid for this reason, and that they would be both obvious and brilliant in their presence on the DARK side of the moon. So for all those doubters out there struggling with every fiber of your minute beings to find any tiny detail to try and pick at, let me state this clearly for you: THE LUNAR LANDING INDEED OCCURRED, AND TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE IS TO SPIT IN THE FACES OF ALL THOSE ASTRONAUTS WHO HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES PRIOR TO THE LUNAR LANDING AND SINCE THEN. THE EXPLORATION OF SPACE IS AUTHENTIC, THE LUNAR LANDING IS AUTHENTIC, THE CASUALTIES ARE AUTHENTIC, AND THE SUCCESSES ARE AUTHENTIC. THERE ARE ENOUGH THINGS GOING ON IN OUR COUNTRY TODAY THAT REALLY DESERVE ALL THE KNIT-PICKING, SO LEAVE THE PHENOMENAL EVENTS OF THE LUNAR LANDING ALONE AND RESIGN YOURSELVES TO REDIRECTING THAT OBNOXIOUSLY NARROW POINT OF VIEW ONTO MORE PRESSING ISSUES.

  4. jupmod says:

    It still amazes me to this day why *some* people think the landings were a hoax. The Russians and everyone else would have easily pointed out NASA did not sent anyone, and furthermore, since we had built the most powerful rocket in the world to reach the moon, we might as well go, right? It’s a waste to build a rocket to go to the moon and then don’t go!
    So, I shake my head at the silliness of these Moon Hoax people. They have intelligence of a pea, given none of them are *real* scientists, for real scientists would definitely see the landings were real.

  5. Rowdy Blokland says:

    The ENTIRE Mythbusters series MUST have been set up and sponsored by NASA from the beginning, just to let this episode ‘sneak in’!!!

    It’s alss so chrystal clear to me, all of a sudden.

    But I may be wrong about this one. As on the moon itself and in the heads of all Moon Conspiracy Theorists and myself, there is nothing but a vacuum .. which explains our fascination for the moon in the first place.

    • M says:

      …Right now I’m catching my breath from laughing to make a response. Currently, I don’t know where to begin. NASA orchestrated this? Really? Mythbusters DID this because they ‘Bust Myths’. This is a Myth. It is busted. You don’t have to be a genius to get that. NASA probably could’ve found a more cost effective way to do this if they wanted to. Do us a favor. Think.

      • Feek says:

        Pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

  6. John Dee says:

    jupmod; you make a point, to a point. The development and construction of those rockets, at massive expense and great profit, began long before the actual “moon landings”. Does it not occur to you that if if were discovered that it was not possible, for any of the number of the reasons explored on this site, to actually carry out the moon landings, justification for the said expense would make faking the the moon landings all the more likely ?
    Try perhaps to imagine the situatiion where vast sums of money had been spent on infrastructure and hardware, only to discover that the probability of success was very small or even clearly impossible. Try to imagine a president like Richard Nixon making an adress to the nation “My fellow Americans, we are all going to look a little silly here, but we seem to have bitten off a little more than we can chew……” O.K. maybe it isnt true, but if it was, what would be the best option, fess up or fake it ?”
    Simply because a parochial national press largely fails to report on commentary not considered to be in the national interest, does not mean there wasn’t a great deal of disbelief out there, and still is.

    If I were a “real” scientist and I valued my job, I would certainly keep dissenting opinions to myself. The extraordrinary assumptions that scientists are immune from guillibilty, or actually “all” do believe absolutely in the moon landings, or would speak up if they didn’t, astonishes me .

    If anyone should wish to take the time to go on a journey of discovery , and learn how it is that the human mind is conditioned, and how it functions in accepting, rejecting or altering imformation presented, within the requirements and constraints of the enviroment in which it operates, is making a very worthwhile investment.
    Try thinking outside of the square. Try imagining the bigger picture, the political context of the time and the political leadership, the mood of the nation and the imperative, in a very human way, demonstrate the superiority of the prevailing system to the people. Then travel through history and discover what extraordrinary things were considered as absolute truths by the majority of populations past. You may actually find it in yourself to concede that “pea brains” who challenge the moon landings, right or wrong, just could have some insight that others are lacking. Cheers, good luck.

    • Mora says:

      No thanks. I would prefer to argue this one on the scientific and factual evidence – rather than pyschobabble.

      • annie says:

        Amen! I suppose if John was born in 1492 he would say that Columbus didn’t land on the shores of the Caribbean Islands, either. The world IS flat, you know. I guess I just imagine America now since it can’t be true either.

    • ryan says:

      If I were a real scientist and valued my job, I’d take all that conflicting evidence and go straight to every news organization, day time talk show, and Letterman.

      That’d pay a lot better than being a scientist…

  7. trwlsch says:


    You said to learn about how we can go back… if we landed on the moon, how come we haven’t done anything with what we have learned from being there? We haven’t gone back or made plans to use the moon in any way shape or form!!! Why? Because we never landed on it.

    • annie says:

      We DID go back. Many times.

      • Freed says:

        You DID? So, how is up there? Any vacation photos for FB? At least 3 Mpixels or better?

        • Luvodicus says:

          The moon has been returned to 9 times over the past ten years by at least 4 different countries. We have high resolution images of the earth, celestial objects (stars, planets, etc) as well as of the Moon itself.

    • ashton says:

      wow…umm we went 6 times ppl gosh

  8. richard says:

    conspiracy or not i would like to know why with having the hubble telescope and taking pictures of mars and more of deep space and beyond we dont get to see any pictures of the moons surface??????
    someone please tell me why you only see one side of the moon as the earth rotates around the sun on its orbit,the moon should rotate on its orbit
    around the earth.Closeups would be nice.

    • Keith says:

      I’m probably to late for this guy to hear this, but to anyone else, the reason is that the moon broke of from Earth while still forming. The molton rock and volcanic activity caused the denser materials to be pulled closer to Earth while the less dense were displaced to the other side. Now, whenever it revolves around Earth, the same side is always pulled to us and the same side always faces us. The moon does rotate, and all sides face the sun at some point. There is no “dark side”, thats just the term for the side always facing away from Earth.

      • annie says:

        Also, no mere picture would convince these idiots. If the Hubble took pictures to ‘prove’ the landings, the paranoid masses would say those were fake as well. It is easy to sit back and yell “Prove it to me!” and then say “Fake” and “I don’t believe it”. It takes more intelligence and actual science knowledge to understand the moon landings than these people have. They’ll believe whatever they read on the internet, as long as it jives with their twisted view of the world. I once read ‘proof’ on the internet that kittens grow on trees. There were pictures of the little kittens dangling from the branches by their tails. Maybe John and Richard want to buy a kitten.

    • David says:

      To a degree I’m with Richard as far as pointing the Hubble, or any hi-res camera equipped satellite (we supposedly have toms of those spinning around Earth right?) at the Moon’s surface and especially where the USA landed it’s people 40 years ago. It basically took NASA 30 years before I finally got to see hi grade images from Mars finally exposing the reality that the “pyramids” and “sphinx” on the surface were naturally occurring formations. But release them they did. I’d love to see the remains of the LEMs, the lunar buggy, flags, detritis left behind, etc. photographed in detail. This would be akin to photographing the Titanic or any historically important relic from our collective past. How hard would this be to do? When this occurs It will assuage many doubts people have as far as I’m concerned.

    • toxic_scientist says:

      For those who think that we can just take a picture of the moon and “see” the Apollo hardware please take this into consideration. It’s clearly impossible for an optical telescope on the Earth to resolve any of the Apollo hardware on the Moon, since the best systems, using adaptive optics in the near-infrared, can resolve details of maybe 0.02 arcsec. A lunar lander of width 5 meters, at a distance of 382,000 km, subtends an angle of 0.003 arcsec. The Hubble Space Telescope isn’t appreciably closer the Moon, and its best resolution is about 0.03 arcsec in the near-UV. Not good enough. An infrared image taken by one of the the European Very Large Telescopes in Chile, which has 8.2-meter mirror, shows some of the finest detail observed from the Earth. You can see images with an angular resolution of about 0.07 arcsec; they show details as small as 130 meters across. Still a lot larger than the lunar lander….



    • moonhoax says:

      The government bribed the ussr with wheat from U.S. farmers. You moon landing believers sure don’t due research to verify it. You all are so closed minded.

      • Freed says:

        Exactly that. Or some kind of gentleman agreement.

        • Feek says:

          It was more of a nod and a wink.

  10. jupmod says:

    Boy, it seems some people are the idiots. Again, it makes no sense to build a rocket to go there, and we do not go there. Why spend money for nothing? Do you ever think about *that*, John? It’s called “commen sense”. It makes no sense make a such a conspiracy when we had the tech to go there, which we *did*.

  11. John Dee says:

    jupmod; Hmmmnnnn, can’t really think of a way of getting it across in a way which you will understand. I don’t have a problem with people accepting what they are told, we all cope in this world the best way we can.
    I’d really like to believe the moon landings actually happened too, but on the balance of it, the official account just doesn’t add up. As an exercise in enquiry, it’s quite challenging, sobering and very enlightening.
    Political organisations with the kind of personality types they often attract, can occasionally in history use their powers to achieve extraordrinary dececptions, for what they perceive, or claim to perceive, the good of the nation or of the economic or religious system of the country they represent. This appears to be one of those occasions, carried out quite effectively insofar as convincing, albeit a decreasing majority of the population, of the absolute truth of their claims. An extremely important historical event at an extraordrinary moment of tension in the world.
    People will, and must believe what they need to believe, and largely ignore what sits uncomfortably. It just happens to a blend of human nature and our conditioning from birth. I’d be quite delighted to be proved wrong on this, but it’s going to take a lot more real evidence than has been provided.
    Your mildly emotive response is perfectly understandable. Cheers and good luck, enjoy life.

    • Keith says:

      I realize they might have faked it back then, but they didn’t, as anyone with a rather high power telescope can see. This would have been proven false several million times by people or governments looking to make a name for themselves. Or did the government paint little moonlanding sites on all the telescope lenses?

    • Aaron says:

      John, when posting to a discussion board, avoid long pointless soliloquies. Cheers and good luck yourself, you need it more than any of us.

  12. Himself says:

    Shelley – the camera was held by a retractor arm because the people at NASA did not want to miss the special moment

  13. Jim says:

    It seems like if we did make it to the moon, then some of that scientific knowledge could be applied or adapted to the BP Gulf disaster.

    Mr. Cousteau did research the ocean’s depths. I watched it on TV as a child and was fascinated. He would be appalled that a nation and a world that has the knowledge to put a man on the moon, doesn’t have the knowledge to stop an oil leak from killing the Gulf.

    Shame on us–utilize/adapt/adjust/modify the amazing equipment made for space exploration for stopping the BP/Haliburton fiasco!

    • Keith says:

      It’s that simple! Huzzah! Then “modify” toasters to make perpetual energy, and sinks to turn lead into gold! Surely, if we can turn a rocket into a submarine, we can accomplish this.

  14. truth says:

    how comes when the apollo 11 “landed” on the moon.. there was no damage on the floor of the moon. It was like the spacecraft was built there, there should be atleast like a dent or sumthin on the surface

    • Aaron says:

      That one is so obvious nobody has bothered to reply! truth, I’m sure you can figure this one out. If not, I’m sure you can apply for disability.

    • Freed says:

      It is too much to ask who moves camera to follow modul when it leaves surface. Don’t ask too much :)

  15. Steves says:

    OK; I like the experiments… Of how NASA faked the landing; using all the same materials and effects NASA did (NASA as a reference- cute), you were trying to discredit NASA- Right? Because all that your experiments did- was show it could be faked- you certified it. Nice job, now if I get all the right type of film and special dust, I can fake me being on the moon. BTW; NASA has still not mastered time and space, which is why they can not go beyond the shuttle, but they can build spaceships to nowhere. Think about it- you were able to replicate what NASA did and you did not go to the moon. So back then NASA went to the moon via your methods.

  16. SirSpork says:

    The lunar landing happened. Deal with it.

    • Freed says:

      Too bad you was’t there to participate. When not seeing is believing …

      • Anonymous says:

        I didn’t see the Holocaust, WWII, or the Wright Brother’s first flight with my own eyes.

        Clearly, these things never happened.

  17. Liar says:

    USA is a good liar..They have a plan to conquer the world with Zionnist..This relate with Illuminati & Freemason..Open your eyes..

  18. PDAlger says:

    You could have perfect high resolution photos of the Apollo landing sites showing the left-overs from the mission in clear detail. I guarantee that this wouldn’t prove anything to the conspiracy crowd. They would just say that the photo was faked. There is no proving anything to these people. They are all paranoid. They spend 99.9% of their time looking at one side of this argument and completely ignoring any rebuttal of their argument.

    Anyone who objectively looks at the evidence presented by both sides, and weighs that evidence objectively will know the truth.

  19. John Dee says:

    Yes, you could have perfect high resolution photos, but the reality is, you don’t. As the experience of the astronauts in the shuttle proved back in 90’s, five hundred miles above the surface of the Earth, things begin to get very difficult, and that to date is about the limit.
    There seems to be some confusion between the words rebuttal, and gainsay. Some, who are firmly convinced of the moon landings seem to think that simply repeating what was originally offered as evidence will suffice as an explanation. Sorry it just doesn’t wash, clearly there many questions to which satisfactory answers have not been forthcoming.
    The so called paranoia ofthe challengers is largely a wishfull figment of the defenders imagination. If as it appears, the landings were faked, I , and I know I speak for many others, find the whole thing extremely amusing. It’s simply no big deal, and the debate is challenging and fun

  20. Desepchun says:

    It was a good episode. However I think they mis-called a couple of thier Busteds.

    The slowed down image, looks exactly like the “real” one. There are some odd suit movements from Jamie…but he’s wearing a prop. It’s a costume of an Astronauts suit so it would jiggle and wiggle more.
    It looked like a pretty clear plausibility.

    Then the boot print they called busted. The close up showed the edges were soft and the impressions were not that deep. The real image has boot lines that you could use as a straight edge and are deep enough to use to plant crops. Also the inital foot print was made in motion. The foot came in and left at an angle, in thier test the booth stamped down.

    But they closed the door on alot of possibilites. They also avoided some of the greatest points, such as the identical horizons from differant parts of the planet.

    • Keith says:

      The sand they used in the vaccum was about .5 centimeters deep. The shoe didn’t have anywhere else to go, it hit bottom.

  21. Desepchun says:

    Could be that the US and USSR agreed that thier nations needed to have an enemy to stay focused and motivated. Keep that industrial war machine churning.

    Why didnt the russians sell us out? They were doing the same things.

    heh :)

    On a side note, I’ve always believed we did make it too the moon, we may have fudged a little on the time, but we got there.

  22. Jack Wiki says:

    All this proves is that it is very scary that the people who doubt the reality of the moon landing can vote. I believe that American voters should be given an IQ test before being allowed to vote.

    • Aaron says:

      Agreed wholeheartedly! Same with having kids.

  23. Lorena says:

    IT DID HAPPEN. All of the people saying that it didn’t happen ARE NOT SCIENTISTS. Astronauts brought over 350 kilos of lunar rocks to study. Those rocks have been in the hands of geologists for decades, yet NOT even ONE SAID THEY WERE FAKE. There is nobody ABSOLUTELY NOt one PERSON INVOLVED IN THE APOLLO PROJECT THAT SAYS IT WAS FAKE. BTW, considering the fact that this conspiration lasted for 41 years, and thousands of people were involved, NASA would have spent a great deal of money to covering it up. I really can’t imagine NASA getting extra funding from the budget each year to cover up the conspiracy. Not to mention that the probability of thousands of people keeping a secret for so long is extremely low.

  24. Lorena says:

    truth: I really can’t answer that question but the most important thing THE MOON IS NOT THE EARTH. THE LANDER IS NOT A PLANE. It uses a special type of fuel becasue there is no oxygen on the surface of the moon. But many sites, like bad astronomy, have answered why there is no crater

  25. bk says:

    Moonlanding unbelievers are like flat-earthers and holocaust deniers– what sad wasted lives.

  26. taico88 says:

    Forget about the photographs, foot prints, film sequences and motive – what about the vertical rocket landing? From what I can see, even as late as 2006 we have celebration over a vertical rocket take off and landing. In 2009 a test flight of Masten Space Systems XA-0 celebrated 93 seconds of total flight time over three flights! How in 1969 did they get a vertical rocket landing and then get the alignment so correct that the crew can make a perfect take off then hook up with an orbiting mother ship.

    Sure you can train anyone to do the calculations but how to you burn off all that horizontal velocity and convert it into a perfect vertical landing in real life. Yes we do have Vertical Take-Off and Landing aircraft but they have wings and plenty of spare fuel.

    • annie says:

      Yet, jet planes in flight can hook up with a fuel plane and refuel and then detach. OH that must be fake too! Tell my cousin the Air Force Jet pilot.

    • Rob Australia says:

      Ok, can I suggest you please go and actually do two things.
      1. Read at least a laymans guide to Orbital Mechanics.
      2. Never Reproduce… ever.

      Orbital Mechanics isn’t that hard to understand but you clearly don’t.. and VTOL doesn’t require Wings.. that’s the joys of it.. you can VTOL a BRICK with enough Thrust.. Obviously you never took notice in Physics or Maths.

  27. James says:

    you people whom try and prove that we had landed on the moon are seriously idiots… Every Piece of information/evidence you tell me I have a counter for it. It was rigged and so was this episode. NASA probably just paid them to do it so the heat of the conspiracy would die off..cuz lets face it, you pretty much believe everything they prove to be wrong or right, right? screw our government.

    • annie says:

      Screw the gov’t? Then leave if it is so bad.

    • Aaron says:

      Just because you have a half-wit comeback doesn’t mean you are right. Only a half-wit would think like that. And if you are paying attention, it is pickle heads like you who are babbling about the landing being faked. We clear headed people are simply responding to you, not vice-versa.

      • Feek says:

        Don’t get worked over what pickle head says…words to live by

  28. John Dee says:

    Taico makes an excellent point. I try to imagine what would actually be in my field of vision looking out of the window of the lander and I can’t see how other than landing on a known, perfectly flat surface, anyone could even contemplate the feat. Thats assuming the whole thing was even feasible, and really it all does look a bit silly now.

  29. Gariandos says:

    Each crewman of Apollo 11 had made a spaceflight before this mission, making it only the second all-veteran crew (the other being Apollo 10) in manned spaceflight history. Collins was originally slated to be the Command Module Pilot on Apollo 8 but was removed when he required surgery on his back and was replaced by Jim Lovell, his backup for that flight. After Collins was medically cleared, he took what would have been Lovell’s spot on Apollo 11; as a veteran of Apollo 8, Lovell was transferred to Apollo 11’s backup crew, but promoted to backup commander. n early 1969, Bill Anders accepted a job with the National Space Council effective in August 1969 and announced his retirement as an astronaut. At that point Ken Mattingly was moved from the support crew into parallel training with Anders as backup Command Module Pilot in case Apollo 11 was delayed past its intended July launch and would later join Lovell’s crew and ultimately be assigned as the original Apollo 13 CMP. In addition to throngs of people crowding highways and beaches near the launch site, millions watched the event on television, with NASA Chief of Public Information Jack King providing commentary. President Richard Nixon viewed the proceedings from the Oval Office of the White House. A Saturn V launched Apollo 11 from Launch Pad 39A, part of the Launch Complex 39 site at the Kennedy Space Center on July 16, 1969 at 9:32 AM. It entered orbit 12 minutes later. After one and a half orbits, the S-IVB third-stage engine pushed the spacecraft onto its trajectory toward the Moon with the Trans Lunar Injection burn at 12:23 PM. About 30 minutes later the command/service module pair separated from this last remaining Saturn V stage and docked with the lunar module still nestled in the Lunar Module Adaptor. After the lunar module was extracted, the combined spacecraft headed for the Moon, while the third stage booster flew on a trajectory past the moon and into solar orbit. On July 19 at 1:21 PM, Apollo 11 passed behind the Moon and fired its service propulsion engine to enter lunar orbit. In the thirty orbits that followed, the crew saw passing views of their landing site in the southern Sea of Tranquility about 12 miles southwest of the crater Sabine D. The landing site was selected in part because it had been characterized as relatively flat and smooth by the automated Ranger 8 and Surveyor 5 landers along with the Lunar Orbiter mapping spacecraft and unlikely to present major landing or extra-vehicular activity challenges. On July 20, 1969 the lunar module Eagle separated from the command module Columbia. Collins, alone aboard Columbia, inspected Eagle as it pirouetted before him to ensure the craft was not damaged. As the descent began, Armstrong and Aldrin found that they were passing landmarks on the surface 4 seconds early and reported that they were “long”: they would land miles west of their target point. Five minutes into the descent burn, and 6,000 feet above the surface of the moon, the LM navigation and guidance computer distracted the crew with the first of several unexpected “1202” and “1201” program alarms. Inside Mission Control Center in Houston, Texas, computer engineer Jack Garman told guidance officer Steve Bales it was safe to continue the descent and this was relayed to the crew. The program alarms indicated “executive overflows”, where the guidance computer could not complete all of its tasks in real time and had to postpone some of them. This was neither a computer error nor an astronaut error, but stemmed from a mistake in how the astronauts had been trained. Although unneeded for the landing, the rendezvous radar was intentionally turned on to make ready for a fast abort. Ground simulation setups had not foreseen that a fast stream of spurious interrupts from this radar could happen, depending upon how the hardware randomly powered up before the LM then began nearing the lunar surface: hence the computer had to deal with data from two radars, not the landing radar alone, which led to the overload. When Armstrong again looked outside, he saw that the computer’s landing target was in a boulder-strewn area just north and east of a 300 meter diameter crater (later determined to be “West crater”, named for its location in the western part of the originally planned landing ellipse). Armstrong took semi-automatic control and, with Aldrin calling out altitude and velocity data, landed at 4:17 PM on July 20 with about 25 seconds of fuel left. Apollo 11 landed with less fuel than other missions, and the astronauts also encountered a premature low fuel warning. This was later found to have been due to greater propellant ‘slosh’ than expected uncovering a fuel sensor. On subsequent missions, extra baffles were added to the tanks to prevent this. Throughout the descent Aldrin had called out navigation data to Armstrong, who was busy piloting the LM. A few moments before the landing, a light informed Aldrin that at least one of the 67 inches probes hanging from Eagle’s footpads had touched the surface, and he said “Contact light!”. Three seconds later, Eagle landed and Armstrong said “Shutdown”. Aldrin immediately said “Okay, engine stop. ACA – out of detent.” Armstrong acknowledged “Out of detent. Auto” and Aldrin continued “Mode control – both auto. Descent engine command override off. Engine arm – off. 413 is in.”. Charles Duke, acting as CAPCOM during the landing phase, acknowledged their landing by saying “We copy you down, Eagle”. Armstrong continued with the remainder of the post landing checklist, “Engine arm is off.” before responding to Duke with the famous words, “Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.” Armstrong’s abrupt change of call sign from “Eagle” to “Tranquility Base” caused momentary confusion at Mission Control and Duke remained silent for a couple of seconds before, momentarily tongue-tied, expressing the relief of Mission Control: “Roger, Twan– Tranquility, we copy you on the ground. You got a bunch of guys about to turn blue. We’re breathing again. Thanks a lot.”. Two and a half hours after landing, before preparations began for the EVA, Aldrin broadcast that: This is the LM pilot. I’d like to take this opportunity to ask every person listening in, whoever and wherever they may be, to pause for a moment and contemplate the events of the past few hours and to give thanks in his or her own way. He then took Communion privately. At this time NASA was still fighting a lawsuit brought by atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair which demanded that their astronauts refrain from religious activities while in space. As such, Aldrin chose to refrain from directly mentioning this. He had kept the plan quiet and did not reveal it publicly for several years. Buzz Aldrin was an elder at Webster Presbyterian Church in Webster, TX. His communion kit was prepared by the pastor of the church, the Rev. Dean Woodruff. Aldrin described communion on the moon and the involvement of his church and pastor in the October, 1970 edition of Guideposts magazine and in his book “Return to Earth.” Webster Presbyterian possesses the chalice used on the moon, and commemorates the Lunar Communion each year on the Sunday closest to July 20.

  30. Gariandos says:

    And another thing about the no crater thing on landing. No crater should be expected. The Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final landing. The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module’s own weight, diminished by the 1/6 g lunar gravity and by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. At landing, the engine thrust divided by the nozzle exit area is only about 10 kilopascals. Beyond the engine nozzle, the plume spreads and the pressure drops very rapidly. (In comparison the Saturn V F-1 first stage engines produced 3.2 MPa at the mouth of the nozzle.) Rocket exhaust gases expand much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. To reduce this, rocket engines designed for vacuum operation have longer bells than those designed for use at the Earth’s surface, but they still cannot prevent this spreading. The Lunar Module’s exhaust gases therefore expanded rapidly well beyond the landing site. However, the descent engines did scatter a lot of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and many mission commanders commented on its effect on visibility. The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photographs do show scouring of the surface along the final descent path. Finally, the lunar regolith is very compact below its surface dust layer, further making it impossible for the descent engine to blast out a “crater”. In fact, a blast crater was measured under the Apollo 11 Lunar Module using shadow lengths of the descent engine bell and estimates of the amount that the landing gear had compressed and how deep the lander footpads had pressed into the lunar surface and it was found that the engine had eroded between 4 and 6 inches of regolith out from underneath the engine bell during the final descent and landing.

  31. Ross Hunter says:

    I don’t know if this is where to leave suggestions of myths to bust, but one thing left out is the radiation on the moon. Though an explanation is given of how the astronauts can survive in space with radiation, it has never been explained how they coped with no levels of protection in their suits when moon walking. Why haven’t the astronauts developed cancer, or did the government replace the real astronauts with stand-ins for the public view as the real explorers have since died?

    • Trevor says:

      The suits have built in anti-radiation gear. Plus they weren’t there for very long. Besides, radiation doesn’t necessarily equal cancer.

  32. John Dee says:

    Ross Hunter. Suggest you try “Apollo Anomalies” or
    “Andreas Room , The Nasa Moon Landings Fact or Fiction”. “Roger” has made some very astute observations there recently. Evidence would suggest that the enviroment outside of the magnetosphere is utterly hostile to humans. Interestingly, the unmanned Russian Lunokhod 2 Rover has now been identified on the moons’surface clearly, visible in photographs.

  33. Seeing is Believing? says:

    For those that keep saying the Van Allen radiation belts make travelling to the moon impossible: http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html

    • zeppler says:

      Have you ever passed through the Van Allen radiation belt!

  34. John says:

    If ANY of the people who believe that the moon landings were a hoax were actually sent to the moon themselves, they STILL wouldn’t believe that we’ve sent people to the moon. They would insist that they were drugged or hypnotized, or that they were subjected to mind-control, or ANYTHING to avoid the truth. Every ‘refutation’ of a piece of evidence that supports the reality of the moon landings is lacking, and they haven’t the cognitive acuity to comprehend that.

  35. Jack Wizard says:

    I always believed in the moon landings…but have been interested in the conspiracy theories. Did anyone answer why the letter “c” was seen on 2 of the moon rocks? Thought that was interesting. I believe we have landed on the moon, just not when we originally stated so…and it was hard not to think NASA paid the Mythbuster guys for this episode!

    • Trevor says:

      If NASA faked it, they could take all the shots they wished. When they reviewed their “fakes,” which they would, they would certainly notice this “c”. In order to keep people from making dumb claims, they would re shoot it.

  36. Shawn says:

    If someone would like to give one piece of solid evidence that proves this landing didn’t happen. Insteal of Mythes and theories, I will gladly convert my belief that the US actually landed on the moon?

    There is none, oh damn sorry i’ll continual believing and you can continue to look stupid.

    • Zeppler says:

      How could anyone give you solid evidence,unless they had actually been to the Moon.That is precisely how NASA get away with their audacious lies,and they know that they only have to rely on the “Astronaut’s” loyalty to keep up the act and carry the deception on indefinitely.As a starter,can anyone explain the photograph of the Lunar Module blasting of from the surface of the Moon.WHO took the photograph?How did they obtain the photo,AFTER,the LM had taken off?Perhaps,there was a mysterious Astronaut that got left behind,and gave it to the next mission that landed.

      • Connor says:

        They took it with a mechanical arm with a camera on it. Please do your research next time.

        • Patrick says:

          Continuing with Zepplers question, what about the film footage of them taking off from farther away? The camera films them taking off and actually tracks them as they ascend. The camera is obviously placed at a stationary position filming the entire event. Who or what was doing the filming?

          • Stats Geek says:

            The camera was moved remotely from NASA mission control. The one shot you see is actually from the last Apollo mission. They tried it with previous missions, but due to the time delay on the signal to move the camera, they only “got it right” on the last mission. These aren’t difficult questions to answer. Please look them up before forming opinions.

  37. Jack says:

    I believe that the reason for a letter being seen on one of the moon rocks in a picture is because of something being on it when the picture was being developed. Apparently, it’s not on the negative. This is just what I’ve heard.
    This is the only real thing I’ve seen debated here. No one else hase posed any actual arguments.

    • zeppler says:

      Yes,the ink from a marker pen.Has,anyone,ever proved to your satisfaction,that the mark is not on the Negative.

  38. John Dee says:

    Further to Taico’s comment above regarding the landing. The vision downward from the Lunar Lander is very limited. You’re landing on a surface that is completely unfamiliar. Dust, it is claimed, is billowing up from the surface when the LLM is thirty feet from the surface. You then can’t see a damn thing. You have no idea whether the LLM will put its foot into a hole or not. You are essentially landing by feel, on a surface of a substance at which you can only guess. If it doesn’t work,
    you are dead, and the whole damn program is kaput, finished.
    Come on guys, wise up, it is just plain common sense. That doesn’t take “the right stuff”, that requires stupidity. What are the odds of pulling that off flawlessly five times? It’s ridiculous.

    The rocket engines must have been producing almost full power till touchdown, or the thing would have fallen like a stone (or a feather in 1/6 EG), and not a speck of dust on those perfectly shaped dust catchers on the feet of the lander?

    Come on, the games up, it couldn’t be done then, and it can’t be done yet, and probably wont be done for at least fifty more years. It was fun while it lasted but sometime we have to sober up.

    • Mora says:

      Let me guess. You have some kind of BA?

      I’m a scientist, and come from a family and friend group that are scientists/engineers. In college, I worked under a very prestigious professor who actually did some work on the lunar lander during his heyday. There were a number of people he introduced me to that also worked on the lunar lander with Grumman (sp?) and other contractors.

      It is hard to believe that they would all lie, especially considering that many of these men are highly ethical men. I can think of two in particular that have resigned from jobs for ethical reasons.

      I will lower myself to the psychobabble debate with you and ask two questions.

      -How many people do you believe it would require to ‘fake’ the lunar landing? Remember, we have to trick the entire staff at NASA, who will be poking and prodding over every bit of data acquired on this mission.

      -Why would nobody step up and blow the whistle? These are many established men, who have nothing to lose from telling the ‘truth’ if it is a hoax. In fact, any whistleblower would become famous and most likely gain money for tattling on NASA. Scientists and engineers are generally well compensated, ethical, and educated individuals; not simply ‘working stiff’s that are scared of getting in trouble for blowing a whistle.

      • zeppler says:

        As far as I know,there are several NASA people that have admitted they were hoodwinked,and what about the Astronaut that claims the Apollo mission’s were faked.It would not take too many NASA workers to conjure up an imaginary Moon landing,as it would only need to involve the top people.I am of the opinion,that they may have reached the Moon,but never landed,but the NASA workers were deceived into thinking it happened by the use of very clever photography and pre arranged radio transmissions.Maybe,that’s what didn’t happen,but until such a time that all the anomalies are answered to the satisfaction of everyone,then there will always be doubts.

        • Johnny Storm says:

          As far as you know? Really? Which astronaut?

        • Feek says:

          So they went aaaallll the way up to the moon, said “nope, too scary” and just turned around and went home?

          That’s even stupider than saying we never went in the first place.

  39. Alan Pendleton says:

    As is typical with conpiracy theorists, no amount of evidence will ever convince them that they are wrong. Even the most thorough and well-reasoned counter-argument is no match for the power of denial.

    • John Dee says:

      Well then, lets see your well reasoned counter argument to my last post. There is a difference between a counter argument and simply repeating the original dubious model that was challenged.

      Keith, you have a delightfully naive world view. Work and sacrifice? Not highly paid jobs with worthwhile compensation for effort and cooperation?.

      Mora. If I had any doubts as a NASA employee I would think it judicious to keep my mouth firmly shut. You might round out your qualifications to research a little pyschology, particularly in the field of group behaviour.

      • Trevor says:

        The talk show circuit would pay anyone who came out to tell the world about a hoax.

        Please don’t reproduce. Our collective IQ would become way lower.

      • Feek says:

        Show me the math and we can discuss it.

  40. Keith says:

    A lot of people devoted their lives, time and money to this project. Many got divorced, people died, lives were risked by the Soviet Union. I would love to hear you tell one of them that all their work and sacrafice was a lie, that a large portion of their life was a lie, and believe they would go along with it like this.

  41. Steve says:

    I firmly believe after watching the conspiracy theory and mythbusters back to back that all the evidence points towards the moon landings being real. Mythbusters proved the conspiracy theorists wrong. Just my 2 cents.

    Anyone who things the moon landings were faked must have the brain capacity of a brain dead goldfish.

    • zeppler says:

      Just,how,do you work it out,that a couple of highly paid TV bumpkins,have the ability to work out that the landings were real.What can they possibly know about the Moon,without actually having been there themselves.What about the highly experienced scientists that say it did not happen,and put forward very plausible evidence to support this.The trouble with the supporters of the landings,is that they will never answer the questions regarding the anomalies,but,instead,keep repeating the same old tosh,over,and over,again.

      • andy says:

        what? they did just that. they answered a lot of the questions regarding the “anomalies.” they werent trying to prove that the landing happened. they were showing that what the theorists were saying is impossible is actually very possible pertaining to the landing and photos. it happened and it makes no sense to me anymore to believe it did not.

  42. Paul says:

    Do the people that don’t believe in the USA moon landing really think that the Soviet Union, the country racing us to get there first, are going to let us lie and cheat about getting there first??? There is no way that they will just let us take all the glory. Think about it!

    • Freed says:

      Sloppy second! All the dogs and Gagarin and then NASA Entertainment-light-and-magic.
      BTW, who can prove russians in space at all?

    • Freed says:

      Oh yeah. It wasn’t YOU, when you say ‘us’. It was THEM. Don’t take credit for sometihing you have seen on tv. You have never been on Moon and did’t do anything to help them do/fake it. You are victim just as every other human ond Earth.

    • Stats Geek says:

      You are more right than you know, Paul. I read a book about how the Soviet moon program was in deep trouble by the time we were in the later Gemini missions. They were having significant difficulties with their Saturn equivalent rockets, due to their design, and eventually had to give up the moon landing. However, because the way the press was set up in the Soviet Union at that time, this information didn’t get out until after the cold war ended. It makes sense, they were way ahead of us in the beginning – first rockets and satellite, first man in space, first woman in space, first spacewalk, etc. In fact, if anybody was going to “fake it” it would make sense that the Soviet Union would have done so. So, if we did fake it, and anybody high up in the Soviet Union knew, they would have found a way to expose us.

  43. Zeppler says:

    Just a little discrepancy with Jupmod’s statement regarding the most powerful rocket.He states it was the Apollo rocket,but I am pretty certain it was the Russian rocket,Energia,that had the most thrust.Furthermore,a statement made by Mora,regarding,”How many people would have to be involved in faking a Moon landing”.Well,the answer is fairly simple,and would be,”as few as possible”,and would only require a small number of “core” workers to fake the Moon landings.To date,nobody has really got a clue as to what has been going on at Area 51 for the last 50 years,so the US goverment has done a darned good job of covering that up,and there must be 1,000’s of workers there.Do you get my point!

    Sorry,people,but there are too many glaring discrepancies concerning the Moon landings,and you cannot rely on the likes of NASA to tell the truth.The age old comparison about the power of the Computer on Apollo missions,with a Washing Machine programmer,is one that has never been explained.

    The problem with people is that they are very gullible,and are too ready to believe what their goverment’s want them to,especially when it comes to national pride,and deceiving and misleading is something all goverment’s are very adept at doing.All the discrepancies that have been pointed out over the years cannot be explained with a wave of the hand,and there are more things needing scientific answers,rather than some agitated fool defending the likes of NASA.

    • andy says:

      i would use gullable more towards the theorists. one person raises a flag and many anti-establishment individuals are hopping on that bandwagon. a lot of em like to complain that supporters are blind of the truth and refuse to believe the evidence…same can be said with the theorists. you are so fixated on the belief that we faked it you turn a blind eye towards evidence that disproves the myth.

  44. Spantrkker says:

    So the astronauts left footprints in the moondust because the moon soil’s composition is different from anything found on earth?
    That’s an answer that defies the laws of physics.You are talking of soil that contains elements that do not exist on earth, of impressions formed from particles that balance one on top of the other and are held together by …. nothing.
    Poor answer and myth most definitely not busted.

    • Freed says:

      Not busted at all. They say busted but picture is totaly different but they are VIP so you gotta belive them and not your eyes!

    • andy says:

      i would say…busted, your argument makes little sense. everyone is thinking its impossible based on earth materials (normal sand). analyzing samples that was collected from the landing will allow scientists to make a replica to use for training, experiments and in this case, disproving theorists.

  45. Spantrkker says:

    My Moon Landing scepticism was reinforced comparatively recently by an incident that I became aware of that happened before Armstrong’s first landing.
    Washington sent an inspector to Houston to access NASA’s progress towards putting a man on the moon before 1970.He was said to have been so shocked at what he found that he compiled a report that basically stated that there wasn’t faintest likelihood of that happening.Just before returning to Washington he died in a bizarre accident at a railway crossing and his report was never found.Co-incidence? Yeah right.
    Also no-one it seems ever queries NASA’s ability to send TV pictures from the moon’s surface.Do you remember the late-60s? Colour was in its infancy.Digital,HD and satellite TV were decades away but most importantly TV companies had difficulties in those days in transmitting signals to audiences 50 miles away. No problem then for NASA to send it a quarter of a million from a little portable unit!

    • zeppler says:

      I am glad somebody has noticed this,as I pointed out exactly the same points a long time ago.Spot on.

    • Len says:

      “Spantrkker says:
      Also no-one it seems ever queries NASA’s ability to send TV pictures from the moon’s surface.Do you remember the late-60s? Colour was in its infancy.Digital,HD and satellite TV were decades away…”

      NASA spent a lot of money creating a worldwide network of large dish receivers. They incorporated receivers from other countries, as well. The signal may have originated from a tripod held Moon camera, but it was relayed to first the Lunar Module, then to the Command Module in Moon orbit and then to the many large receiver dishes set up for just that purpose on Earth which in turn relayed the signal to NASA at Houston, Texas.

      While satellite technology was in its infancy, it did exist. In fact, President Nixon personally congratulated Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins on the recovery aircraft carrier, USS Hornet, in the middle of the Pacific ocean while 500 million around the world witness this broadcast live via satellite.

      By the way, one of the Apollo 12 Moon landing TV cameras was burned out by accidentally pointing it at the Sun. So, NASA commissioned RCA and other research organizations to come up with a camera that wouldn’t do that. Which RCA did. But, it also led to the invention/development by Bell Labs, RCA and other of the CMOS and CCD electronic chips which are behind the multi-billion dollar digital camera industry of today. (And you thought the only things we got from the Space Program were rocks.)

    • Feek says:

      If the report was never found, how do you know he wrote it?

  46. John Dee says:

    and furthermore……watching the carefree antics of the astronauts racing about on the “lunar surface” in the buggy, you really have to ask youself if the guys weren’t trying to give us a hint that this wasn’t for real. They are doing jumps in 1/6g, in a vacumn!? The smallest accident in which the suits could be compromised would mean inevitable death! Come on, the scenario is simply bizzarre.

    • Matt says:

      So you are saying there is no such thing as the military because the slightest mistake could kill a soldier? Those astronauts understood the risks, just like any soldier would. Like a soldier, they believe they are doing this for the greater good and the risk is worth the reward.

  47. Nikolai says:

    I believe that the moon landing is real and not faked, but i came to think about this thing the other day.

    When you investigated these myths you also proved that it is possible to fake the moonlanding, didn’t you? You used equipment available on earth which gave the same results as the moon landing video. Am I right?

    • andy says:

      i agree, but theorists complained about the possibility of the photos of astronaut in shadow and shadows of rocks, movement of flag, footprint…etc and this episode showed that it was very possible and could have been authentic which i believe was. sure they showed that its possible to fake it, that does not prove that it was faked.

  48. coolerhead says:

    13. Gulf of Tonkin incident that started the Vietnam war…
    oops, that was a real fake.

  49. Doubting Thomas says:

    Up until yesterday, if you would have asked me if the first lunar landing was fake, I would have said you were completely nuts! Then I watched “Fact or Faked”. According to the show, their feather/hammer test “only shows that it COULD be faked, not that it was”! Yet they missed the most obvious proof that the landing was indeed faked! In a side by side comparison video, forget the feathers and just watch the hammers! Both hammers fall at exactly the same rate of speed! This is ONLY possible if both hammers were dropped on earth! In fact, it is not possible anywhere else in our solar system for two objects to fall at exactly the same rate UNLESS they are dropped on the same heavenly body! Therefore, both hammers WERE dropped on Earth! Secondly, after watching “Fact or Faked”, they repeatedly showed a video of an astronaut supposedly “springing” up from a fallen position. While watching that clip, it became painfully obvious that the video was actually a clip of an astronaut falling IN REVERSE! The astronaut’s suit didn’t help him to “spring up”! The video had been reversed! The problem? When you rewind the video to put it in proper perspective, it actually shows a man falling at a normal earth rate of speed, scattering dust and debris in the process!! After watching this episode, I found myself questioning whether the landing had, in fact, taken place! The Mythbusters episode, which I had not previously seen, did absolutely nothing to dispell my doubts. If anyone has an answer to the two issues I have raised, I would love to hear them. So far, I haven’t seen that these have been adequately addressed by anyone.

  50. Manila2010 says:

    I am sure someone must have already pointed this out, but both NASA and the Soviets had sent space probes to the moon, before (Ranger, Luna, Surveyor, etc.) and sent back pictures; some orbited the moon, while others resulted in landings. Were they all phony, too? Prior to Apollo 11, there were two missions (Apollo 8 and Apollo 10) which also orbited the moon just months before Apollo 11. There were subsequent ly six moon missions after Apollo 11, of which five were reported successful and resulted in landings (we all know what happened to Apollo 13-but it still rounded the moon before returning safely to earth). So, were all those faked, as well? I think the skeptics never had any good explanations, to begin with….

    • andy says:

      skeptic’s beliefs have been reduced to the fact that it is possible to fake the scenario and it is…mythbusters faked it all episode long…but does not mean it was faked. so consipiracy theorists are holding onto the fact that it “could be” faked which isnt very definative.

  51. John Dee says:

    Manila 2010. Hmmmn. The issue is whether or not humans were landed on, and returned from the moon. To have a better understanding of why so many people have serious doubts about the manned moon landings, Apollo Reality and Wagging the Moon Doggie are worth looking at.

    It’s a very challenging thing to take on if you are at all serious about proper enquiry. Ones own personal beliefs systems and sense of “having a handle” on the political reality of our world may well be severely tested.

    Takes a lot of time. Well worth it, whatever conclusions you eventually come to. Good luck.

  52. Jerry says:

    The only thing this episode proves, is, that it might actually be faked, not saying it was faked…

    • Objective says:

      hmm … true that!

    • Freed says:

      Very good. Very good indeed! I can agree more.

    • andy says:

      now that i think of it…. each element was tested individually, which shows that it can be faked…but how do you put all those factors together to make the “fake landing” i dont think you can. not in a studio anyway.

  53. Matty says:

    i cant actually fathom how some people still think the americans didnt land on the moon. I mean come on. The russians were in a race with the americans and were in the same period in the cold war with them. Surely this is enough proof man landed on the moon. For one, the russians would have laughed at the americans if they hadnt really landed there. They would have found that far better than sitting back and letting them take all the credit or bombing them.
    Do you not think the russians will have had space probes out checking every move of the americans to check the validity of it? i mean come on…
    To say we didnt go because we havent been since is ridiculous. Do you not realise how much it costs? and how many government cronies it takes to be able to put these missions into practise? Also the computers onboard the apollo mission were not computers at all. They had no computer power and were merely there to take readings to be relayed back to earth where they would be calculated and results sent back.
    All these arguments for man on the moon are ridiculous. I mean, who thinks up these ideas?
    Before i leave this forum full of pessimistic, brain-dead, useless, controversial, non-believing loners with nothing better to do than try to make someone’s or some organizations achievement of the century compare to there dull, boring and full of nothing life… Id like to say good life to you all, id be gutted to have the thought capacity of two short planks of wood!!

  54. Matty says:

    before anyone picks apart my statement with some slight flaws in the english in the sentence “All these arguments for man on the moon are ridiculous. I mean, who thinks up these ideas?”, you know i mean “all these arguments against man on the moon…”
    Perhaps i shouldnt have said anything because it would be funny to see these people so used to picking holes in other people take that sentence and laugh at it… they have nothing better to do i guess and it would give them something to do for 5 minutes of their empty 24 hour day…

  55. Objective says:

    If you insist America did have the technology to carry a lunar landings, why were many (or all) tests “simulations” before the actual mission seemed to be failing? And then all of a sudden, after admissions that the American space program was really in trouble (and behind), NASA lands a man on the moon.

    And I do agree that if a scientists who knew about the hoax valued their jobs AND their lives, they would keep such a thing a secret. (Remember, those who did/do speak are considered “nuts” rights?)

    And why is it that those who argue FOR lunar landings resort to insults to strengthen their arguments. Let’s be mature about this please.

    On the flip-side however, if the lunar landings were a hoax, surely NASA would have put a lot more effort in making the hoax completely believable. It’s not impossible, is it?

  56. Freed says:

    Ask NASA to help you prove that NASA is lying. That’s kind of conflict of interest?
    But, after all it’s NATIONAL Aeroblablabla … soooo … obey or SHOW ENDED.
    … and who the f…k holding camera while ‘first’ man geting out of modul? Zero man on the moon? Soooo many angles of recording in days when tv camera was wheight a ton or more and need own nuclear generator.
    Today will be hard to record all that things whit our scifi CCD cams.
    Only idiot and/or patriot can believe in that.
    It’s a fake 1/1.

  57. Freed says:

    Russia don’t deny it? It’s a gentleman agreement. You don’t deny our fake-dirty-nasty-not-so-popular-christian-human ‘things’ ande won’t do yours.
    Gulags Vs. Guantanamo bay. You think that Russians send any of their guys in space for real? Every?

    I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.

  58. John Dee says:

    O.K. You want to be seriously objective about this? Lets have some honest math, the Mythbusters should be able to to do this one in their sleep. You have a vehicle (all weights and speeds are approximates, someone else can supply the precise figures) about seventeen tons, doing an orbit of the Earth. You swing out of Earths’ orbit and head for the moon. No problem so far, it shouldn’t take much fuel other than for course corrections to get there. However the problem is how the heck are you going to carry enough fuel to stop a seventeen ton object which must have achieved escape velocity from Earths’ gravity obviously, without any braking force other than rocket motors, in order to motor vertically down to a moon landing and motor back up again to a rendezvous? C’mon guys think it through. Hint, the weight of fuel carried, cannot exceed the gross weight of the vehicle.

    Objective, in answer to your question as to why NASA didn’t put enough effort into making it believable. Well, actually they did a reasonable job for the times, but remember the fraud was largely between administration the astronauts, and the movie makers. Its really worth watching the interview where the Apollo 11 astronauts are queried by the press on the visibility of stars from the moons’ surface. Its impossibleto think of everything. Just watch it.

    Don’t take any of the other factors into consideration, just get your head around the fuel thing. Take your time, do a little research.

    All of the political questions can be answered in two words……Richard Nixon.

    • Nit Picker says:

      Small correction:
      The rockets never reached escape velocity. They were powered the entire way out of the atmosphere. Significantly less than escape velocity was achieved (as far as I can tell, people generally agree about the fact that we shot some rockets into space).

      • Facepalmerq says:

        Also, John Dee, escape velocity is a vector that refers to an object being SHOT out from the Earth. As in with a gigantic cannon. Congratulations, you fail High School Physics 1.

    • andy says:

      uh moon has no atmosphere, far less gravity, no resistance so less fuel needed to manuever. in essense going horizontal or vertical will use the same effort… so that fuel argument makes little sense, speaking of research, do yours.

      • Facepalmerq says:

        You also fail High School Physics 1. The existence of atmosphere would probably hinder the ability to slow down. In other words, air-resistance (also known as drag, also known as “the thing that makes it really difficult to get past Mach 3 without special ablative heat shields”) decelerates (since nobody will understand the concept of negative acceleration) an object, thus reducing the magnitude of the velocity. Or, in layman’s terms: Having air makes things slow down. You’d thus need to use less fuel to slow down to a velocity that wouldn’t cause you to splatter onto the moon.

  59. Guardian says:

    Nice heated discussion! I have always believed we landed on the moon, but if NASA wanted to fake it, then its very plausible given from what I’ve seen. Everyone should watch the episode of ‘Paranormal Files: Fact or Faked’. As ‘Doubting Thomas’ said, they do a very impressive job of replicating a few of the questionable videos from the Apollo missions. and as for Mythbusters, I think they should do a follow-up episode. Because they only touched on about 25% of the myths. But like I said before, I’m a believer – But I also know you can’t always believe what the government feeds you. Accept nothing, question everything.

  60. Jat Singh says:

    We did not have the technology to go to the moon in the 1960’s! Back then we had very old computers which had the same power of a calculator that u can buy for £1 or $1 at this time! Your telling me they went to the moon with the computing power of a computer that was developed in 1960s? come on! wake up! when did Intel create their first chip? what could it do? It was rubbish! no way can a chip from the 1960’s take anyone to the moon. What about radiation? How did they survive? What about power? How did they power their space craft with electrical power? Look at todays batties, they can hardly hold power for long! my laptop is a gaming machine, yet i get 2 hours of battery out of it, you telling me they can power a spacecraft for communication, lighting, heat, and everything and have enough power for emergency to communication and get to the moon in the 1960’s? No way. it was a fake so america could protect itself from invasion by other countries. They wanted people to believe they had the technology when they didnt. Nasa didnt have the computing power to do that back then. So drop it.

    • Connor says:

      Your education must be awful. I recommend going to college.

      • Jat Singh says:

        connor, do you believe they went to space with Apollo 11? They had a computer on-board that had a 2Mhz CPU inside. lol They went to space with a pocket calculator. lol. Intel came out with the 8088 series alot later which was clocked at just over 4Mhz. so yea, it was faked. clearly. Radiation would have killed them alone.

        • A Calculator says:

          I hate to tell you that CPU clock speed is not very conclusive evidence for your argument.

          In general, clock speed does not tell the whole story about processors. Today you don’t see clock speed still increasing like it used to. Now it’s cores. There are lots of factors.

          I just wanted to point out that by quoting clock speed, you aren’t making much of an argument. It’s like saying, “How could they talk to Earth from space when they didn’t even have the internet yet.” We’re going to need more information.

    • andy says:

      “we” as a society had no access to this technology, it existed just not on the market. even today NASA and other government programs have access to equipment far outdating the “top of the line” technology that we all have access to currently for everyday use. just because we dont use it doesnt mean it doest exist

    • Facepalmerq says:

      Like many other theorists, you fail High School Physics 1 as well. There’s a reason why moon landings were planned: you could spend a shitload of time doing math on Earth. Landing on the moon boils down to pointing the rocket in the right direction and pushing the button at the right time. This is, of course, dependent on the orbit of the moon and the turn of the Earth, but it makes no sense to say that just because they didn’t have much more computing capacity then a pocket calculator meant they couldn’t do calculus, algebra, and geometry. There’s a reason Calculus existed as a subject back in the 1910’s, it’s because you can do Calculus without a calculator.

      Your argument saying that your laptop only gets 2 hours of battery doesn’t apply, you assume your laptop was engineered to travel to the moon. Engineers exist because people solve problems. With a budget like NASA’s, you have a LOT of room to design a God damn computer so that it’s more efficient, uses less battery, and has max-computing power.

      Furthermore, the Apollo spacecraft had fuel cells, though I expect you’ll just say that fuel cells didn’t exist back then, which is false. The concept of a fuel cell is not difficult. It’s using two gases, oxygen and hydrogen, to create an electric current. That is, electrons going from one side of a platinum plate to another while generating an electric current and water. This is not difficult. Platinum just happens to be more expensive then your typical high school can afford. Also, yes, compressed oxygen and hydrogen DID exist back then. And yes, you can shove a lot of oxygen and hydrogen into a relatively small space, assuming you have a compressor. And yes, you can put a lot in. This is why hydrogen cars are plausible, because you can, in fact, carry enough hydrogen to run a bloody car into a tank small enough to fit into a car trunk/boot (they don’t exist yet because the average American does not have the budget of NASA). This also means that water was not an issue, because you CAN, in fact, drink water. This also means power was not an issue because, indeed, shit does run on electricity.

      Finally, your conclusion that the US was trying to protect itself against invasion somehow manages to ignore Hiroshima. Even if you say that the US didn’t have ICBMs (which it did, the Mercury project, which you DON’T contest, used a modified ICBM), you’re still saying that the US did not drop a nuke on Hiroshima. This is important mostly because getting nuked kind of f*s your army up.

      • Dennis says:

        There isn’t enough awesomeness in the world to describe this post.

  61. Jat Singh says:

    There is so much radiation in space, the astronauts would have died up there. 1960’s we hardly had proper planes yet they say they went to the moon? What you see on tv is controlled. They cant air something that can cause global panic. So they would never admit it. Even if mythbusters found that the moon landings were faked, if they aired it to the public then they could be in trouble for inciting panic to the general public.

    • Glenn Ledder says:

      Has it ever occurred to anyone else that all conspiracy theorists are working together? Clearly all the moon landing deniers, evolution deniers, Holocaust deniers, young Earth theorists, Obama birth certificate deniers, and Biblical literalists have one goal: to make sure that the United States falls behind other countries in science. You aren’t only nuts, you’re traitors.

      • Himmler says:

        Has it ever occurred to you that everyone who says the moon landing happened is American ?

    • Facepalmerq says:

      Radiation in outer space is a problem, but not in terms of 10 day missions. If you say that this is not the correct time frame because the landing was a fake, you are committing a logical fallacy that automatically makes your radiation argument invalid, since it depends on a premise that was the conclusion of an argument that has not been conclusively proven true or false.

  62. Luke K says:

    As much as I love mythbusters, you should’ve never touched this myth. The ONLY conclusion that Discovery Channel’s standards and practices division would’ve ALLOWED was that, here it comes, real shocker here, THE MOON LANDING WAS REAL. LOL. There is no way Discovery would ever let their mythbusters team prove otherwise, or even give a tiny bit of doubt, since that would a) hurt the show’s credibility, or worse yet b) cause serious hysteria and questioning among the U.S. population.

    Mythbusters, please stick to the small fish. Don’t put your hat in the political ring, you’re not qualified to even touch this subject with a stick.


    • Nit Picker says:

      Fox aired a special on the moon landing being faked, and yet, no more hysteria than usual. I don’t think Mythbusters has the kind of impact you think it does.

  63. Ronipogi says:

    I am not a CT and completely believe the moon landing was real. The biggest flaw in CT arguments is why the heck wasn’t Russia, China or other strategic competitors of the USA screaming “FAKE FAKE FAKE” if the landing was indeed faked. They didn’t make a peep. Not a protest, nothing. This was a space race, national prestige was at stake. Why the Russians haven’t said anything until now? Why…coz it happened and was real. I really really wonder what the CT guys will say when China finally lands on the moon and provides solid evidence of Apollo? Oh wait…they will just say the Chinese faked it too. hahaha. loony.

    That being said, I have one major issue with the way they busted the Conspiracy Theorists’ moon landing myths: they used NASA facilities and equipment and NASA provided simulated moon dust to test the myths. Why would you go to the government agency accused of faking things to proove that nothing was faked? Does not make sense.

    They should have been more independent in busting this myth to provide a clean, thorough bust. IE: Use some other vaccuum chamber, one not owned by NASA. Buy simulated moon dust direct from the company that manufactures it, and not get it via NASA.

    They should have done what they do in other episodes…eliminate any unnecessary variables. NASA was one big unnecessary variable in this case.

  64. Clayton says:

    I do agree that the moon landing happened, but my friend says there were no stars in any pictures or video. This is true…

    • Facepalmerq says:

      Moon = Highly reflective (this is why you can see the damn thing at night)
      Highly Reflective = Glare (examples, snow blindness caused by light reflecting off snow)
      Glare = Cannot see dim objects
      Star = Dim object (this is why you can’t see them during the day)
      Therefore, you cannot see the stars in the photos because glare made it impossible to see dim objects.

    • Feek says:

      This is true because of the same reason you can’t see your face in a picture where the sun is behind you glaring into the camera. Too much light difference – the stars are very dim compared to the sun.

  65. Ethan says:

    Over the last few polls, there are over 20% of the people don’t believe that we landed in the moon. How many of that 20% are astronauts or scientists? Forget about all of the pics, films, theories, etc. None of us has gone into space so we can’t make any conclusion about those pics or facts. For the non believer, you can’t make any arguments about those pics or conditions unless you experience them yourselves. If you are able to shows us those facts, we’ll believe you. All you have that is the assumption that comes from your own minds. Like the frogs live at the bottom of a well, they think that the world is just a white circle above which is the mouth of the well. They can’t see anything until they are on top of the well.

    I’m like every believer, we trust our astronauts and scientists, because they are professional people with high moral value. That is one of the reasons why we don’t send politician to the moon. They said they landed in the moon and they showed us the facts, we believed them.

    If you don’t believe them or their facts, then I guess you are too “SMART” and people like Newton, Einstein, etc. and all of believer are “IDIOTS”.

    That’s my 2 cents!!!

  66. m0db0y says:

    If you can prove it on Earth you can also fake it on Earth.

    Anyway all this happened before I was even born so I don’t really care.

    I’d like to see some kind of mission to another world when I’m still young enough to take an interest.

    Lets face it we’re all bored! Either go back to the moon or stop saying we ever did.

  67. John Doe says:

    I have seen great websites that debunk and explain every single claim I have seen here. And so I believe we did it, but I believe it the same way I believe most historic works: written by the victors.
    I think the most poignant argument about the moon landing hoax was this one: “Anyway all this happened before I was even born so I don’t really care.”
    You know, from my point of view that is exactly what everyone’s problem is. We didn’t continue to go. We haven’t gone up there again with a nice Digital Omnimax 3D camera and really put us suckers in our place. Hell at this point I wouldn’t mind if they did that with robots. It would be cool.
    But then just to keep the “pundits” happy we would have to go again every time the technology improved. But then I don’t think that is too bad an idea anyway. I’m sure we could find more information if we go up again anyway. Each successful and unsuccessful attempt to get into space has resulted in new data and improvements on our previous attempts.
    I imagine if we go to the moon again it won’t even closely resemble the old trip from the 60s with cameras strapped to their chests. The digital range finders projected on the glass of their easy mobility bubble suits will be much more accurate and provide much better composition opportunities…. The digital cameras will prevent the developing stage of image processing where a “c” could appear on a rock, and instead the theorists will be able to see in even higher detail stupid things to scrutinize and 5 years down the road would complain about the grainy quality of our 12000pixel x 8700pixel photos and claim it was all computer generated anyway. — We are becoming astoundingly good at faking images these days…

  68. Peregrine says:

    I have two words for you dumbnuts: Moon laser.

    We shoot a laser at the moon. It hits metal that we put there. It bounces back.

    Case closed. Now all you sheeple conspiracy idiots go do something a little less usless with your lives.

  69. haggismuncher says:

    There’s a good chance we are going to be going back with robots. See Google Lunar X Prize.

  70. Facepalmerq says:

    Okay, so there’s one other thing that “OMGFAKE” people don’t touch: The Rest of the Goddamn Space Program.

    To say the moon landing was fake assumes that the rest of the space program was fake. Why? Because you can’t land a man on the moon if you don’t know how to get said man into outer space. This, essentially, is what the Mercury and Gemini programs did. Mercury figured out how to get a man in outer space, Gemini figured out how to get him from the Earth to the Moon and back. Now, no theorist has ever said that the Mercury and Gemini Projects were fake, which means that they accept them as having happened. Why would NASA, the President, Congress, and the People of the United States have ever consented to FUND these two projects? The most logical answer would be “for Apollo”, but since we’re temporarily assuming Apollo never happened, the answer would be “defense”. This assumes the US did not have nukes, which is false. Saying that Mercury and Gemini did not happen also assumes that, somehow, we do not actually have GPS or Satellite Radio/TV, since having those technologies would depend on having the knowledge in how to get an object into friggen outer space, the entire objective of Mercury, and how to make sure it works when it gets there, part of the objective of Project Gemini.

    The moon landing also could not have been fake because there were eleven other Apollo missions before it. Now, we could say that the scenario was that NASA couldn’t figure it out and had to cover it up, but then the question becomes “how did we go there six more times?”. Clearly all THOSE (and the moon rocks and such) were fake as well. Or in other words, several million dollars * seven were sunk towards making a hoax that wasn’t even that great. This also somehow assumes that a massive rocket launched into outer space for no reason.

    Finally, Apollo 13, which no one ever says is fake either, happened. How does Apollo 13 go up and orbit the bloody Moon in a slingshot orbit to return home without blowing up if Apollo 11 had not managed to at least get there?

    Theorists, if you want to argue against this post, I’d recommend you disprove my first argument first, as it’s the most important. Please, show me how Project Mercury, Project Gemini, John Glenn, and SIRIUS Radio did NOT happen.


  71. lopi says:

    to zepper,john lee, and others who are ”non-believers”…it would be best for any of you to make something like a mythbuster like thing..you know,where you can do experiments that would prove all the ”believers” wrong..right??and if you are able to prove it,then man,ohh..it will be good for you..good luck…you all needed it..

  72. Kelly says:

    Returning to the moon

    (…The moon has been returned to 9 times over the past ten years by at least 4 different countries. We have high resolution images of the earth, celestial objects (stars, planets, etc) as well as of the Moon itself.)

    and walking on the moon are two different debates…

    Only twelve astronauts, all American, have walked on the moon, the last in 1972.

  73. Dr. Heffernan says:

    The problem is that Myth-busters examined all the claims produced from that ancient Fox special from 2001.

    Anyone ever really watch the reading of the plaque on 11? The camera on the LM had about a 25 degree tilt to it, yet, the astronauts stand square with the camera frame, walk square with the camera frame. The astronauts should be perpendicular with the Lunar horizon, no matter what the camera angle, and they are not.

  74. Carol says:

    To anyone who thinks the government is covering up a hoax like the moon landing….the government isn’t smart enough to cover up when our president has an affair. Do you honestly think they would be smart enough to cover up something of THIS magnitude??? Come on…

    • Facepalmerq says:

      This thread just became incredibly awesome due to this epic comment!!

  75. Nekoli says:

    the argument continues…. Its like fuel added to the fire. I don’t care anymore. It doesn’t effect us today. All of you are exhausting. What I do know is that we are more than capable to go back and with good reason.

  76. Nekoli says:

    Maybe we did go the moon. Probing them aliens in area 51 back in the 40s and 50s.

    Oh and 9/11 never happened. Kind of like back in the 30’s when “War of the worlds” was read over the radio and fools panicked. There’s proof. Better evidence proclaiming the government planned a catastrophic and careless demolition.

  77. Nekoli says:

    Maybe conspirators want to argue for the sake of argument cause they can’t be constructive at all. They can’t dream a future. And they want to blame the problems of the world and why their lives are complete waste because a building with legs littered their lives with evil. We have quite a large world entirely populated by imperfect people. There will never be such thing as 100% proof or truth because it doesn’t exist. Just live on, build on, dream on, and keep learning. That’s how we grow and survive. It’s actually beautiful things we will forever know nothing. So accept it the fact that no one will come to conclusion about such shenanigans. If you want to you can find a conspiracy from your pencil to even your living room rug. What’s going to happen if you find obvious proof the moon landing was a fake? You get a retarded kindle for fire..I mean plaque, pop up on opera maybe oreilly if you can stand him. Time magazine. your name in the history books whatever (Will anyone care your in the history books?). Will you ever find who told who to do what and how they did this and so for so long? Or will you just use the magical secret guild of naughty boy intent club no girls aloud cuz where competing whose pee pee is bigger….club. I don’t see anything good can come of it. And if someone is guilty for this WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? Everyone back then is so old or dead..We’re not so angry about cause we can’t do anything about it. “Let’s throw his 80 year old butt in jail!!!!” He’s old. Can’t do anything else except suckle on some taxes and smack a nurse in the behind. They’ll be dead soon. And if we do find absolute truth we did land on the moon. Still doesn’t change anything. People don’t like being wrong. You all argue as if you have knowledge and wisdom but you don’t. Cause you don’t what information is. You don’t know what knowledge is. And your struggling to use it better.

  78. Nekoli says:

    To whom believe in the fake moon landing due to doubt. Just remember that sometimes things are simpler than you think they are.

    to whom believe in the fake moon landing due to conspiracies.
    Stop making excuses. Surrender evidence.

    To whom believe the land was a reality.
    Stop feeding them crap. People want to believe. Its what people do. They made there mind long ago just like you did. No one is going switch side of a belief by a forum comment thing (whatever this is). If you couldn’t tell we are all on the internet. Plenty of things to research if people had the time and effort to look into better than your short paragraph can offer. If you were an atheist that witnessed proof of no god or perhaps a bible thumper who witnessed god in its purest form. When you return to spread your tale. People will believe you, and others will not. Forever.

  79. John Dee says:

    Just checking in to see if anyone has offered a sensible explanation as to how the mission could carry enough fuel to stop an object of seventeen tons in mass from a speed of approximately fifteen thousand miles per hour using only rocket motors. No Takers?

    How about landing on a completely unfamiliar piece of real estate that you cannot even see? Remember the dust billowing up at 30 feet from touch down, of which astonishingly not a grain lodged on the perfect dust catchers on the feet of the lander.

    Darn, I thought this site was informative.

    Keep smilin”

    • Doctor Jim says:

      The Leonard used air braking.

  80. Doctor Jim says:

    I’ll give you some number here to look at, Apollo 11 photo’s.

    AS11-40-5914HR[1] , can be found at NASA’s Lunar Journals. You will need a good monitor and the high res version of this photo. If you start from the LM landing pad and head straight down the photo, just a little farther than 1/2 the distance from pad to bottom of picture you will see a print that has been covered and smoothed over…looks like it wasn’t meant to be part of this scene. You are going to have to zoom in to see it.

    In AS11-40-5963HR[1], once again hi-res with good monitor…check out the foot print just to the left of the left foot of the astronaut…it is smooth with no tread prints.

  81. John Dee says:

    Doctor Jim. Oh, that might just be a print left by the camera man. More?

    I’m still mystified how the stars evaded eye and lens. I thought, since they were there and space ex is what they are all about, there might have been a passing interest at least.

    Can you help?

  82. Alterego says:

    I refuse to be drawn into the argument as it has gOne beyond the ridiculous. Just to point out a fact however, the creations argue the validity of their beliefs with a similar style to that of the conspiracy nuts. Many of the antiestablishment fans can be found on other sites with other ‘opinions’ against the widely accepted. Point being they merely regurgitate the arguments of the Past 40years in such a way that it sounds original. Leave them to their fearful lives of illuminati and the extraterrestrial origins of mankind and smile that you aren’t one of them

  83. John Dee says:

    Alterego. In short, you can’t answer the perfectly reasonable questions so you’re trying to upend the board and skulk off in a funk. Four pieces down, and calling for a draw? Don’t think so. We’re not going away.

  84. Veronica says:

    Didn’t the MythBusters team use NASA Facilities to test some of the hoax theory claims… Wouldn’t the constitute a conflict of interest? And haven’t the MythBusters used NASA facilities before for other myth busting purposes in previous episodes? And now surely they will continue to have access in the future… It doesn’t really seem to be in the MythBusters best interest to be showing NASA up as the perpetrators of world hoax.

    I think some of the hoax busting tests were bordering on plausible, and with a little more effort they could have been plausible… But I’m sure they had the help of NASA specialists to help set up any experiments while at NASA, so the results would have had to have been accurate to dispel any chance of a hoax.

    Overall it felt like a “big pats on the back all-round” exercise… NASA: “Thanks MythBusters you get the word out to the kids that walking on the moon was “real” and if you guys need any help in the future just let us know we will be more than happy to help”… After all Special Effects Guys and NASA have a lot in common.

  85. Get Real says:

    Because the Moon and Earth are locked gravitationally into a synchronous rotation/revolution pattern. This means that from our viewpoint, the same face of the moon is always rotated to face us as the moon goes around the earth every month.

  86. you yanks believe anything says:

    whether its moon landings, 9/11, presidential elections your government knows how to pull the wool over your eye’s, use hubble or another independent telescope to take up to date pictures of the equipment left behind on the moon ie moon rover for 1, to prove things once and for all, this seems to be the most logical solution,

  87. you yanks believe anything says:

    oh i forgot to say, they cant take pictures of equipment left behind on the moon because, they would have done it years ago, and there is nothing there to take pictures of, apart from craters and dust.

  88. you yanks believe anything says:

    nasa couldnt even get the space shuttle program right, they cocked that up good and proper, look at the technology they had for that, im sure the technology that was used on the moon landings was virtually nothing, ok space travel is dangerous, but really, to the moon and back, no way jose

  89. whatmeworry says:

    ….and yet the Mythbuster team is capable of creating the exact same condition on earth as the conspirationist pointed out. How amazing too since they’re special effects experts.

  90. Ciara Dees says:

    you could test if you can bust an chinse finger trap to the test

  91. Fabiano says:

    Why NASA did not send people to the Moon after the 1969?
    I believe we have much more technology now than 42 years ago…

  92. Ricky says:

    I don’t buy into the whole moon landing fiasco. Nasa faked the whole thing. It’s like the Abrahamic religions – it’s complete b.s.

  93. Andrew says:

    If NASA faked the moon landing, the USSR would’ve been all over it. Most of you skeptics are forgetting there was a space race between the US and USSR. The Soviets had satellites around the moon that could’ve easily proven we never landed on the moon. You need to understand that this was a war of propaganda, and the moon landing was a huge victory for America.

    We really have no reason to go back to the moon now. Creating a lunar civilization would cost an ungodly amount of money and would have no real benefit. What purpose do we have to go back? We won the race to the moon and that’s that. Believing that the moon landing is fake is just ludicrous.

    • Himmler says:

      What logic did they have to go there in the first place then ?

  94. you yanks believe anything says:

    i not saying we need to go to the moon, just prove it once and for all there’s nasa junk left behind on the moon’s surface, america think’s its the best and they have a point to prove to the rest of the world, in reality your big headed, we done it 1st etc etc, why? who cares? end all speculation, or shall we wait until china proves you wrong when they get there, who will have egg on their face then i wonder

  95. you yanks believe anything says:

    america’s downfall is admitting it’s wrong and it’s sorry, there’s no shame in saying sorry, perhaps it will lead to making you a better trusting nation, instead of a lying interfering instigator

  96. you yanks believe anything says:

    as for the russians, there was a cold war on, nations keep quiet about each other business, what happened and what was said was kept behind the iron curtain, they had there views, but it wasnt broadcast around the globe like news etc is today, they were far far advanced in space travel etc, america knew this, and they wanted a piece of the pie, and so it begins, propoganda between america and the rest of the world

  97. you yanks believe anything says:

    the astronauts wore air conditioning units on there backs, der, there’s no air in a vacumm, solar flares from the sun, der, a tin foil boiler suit isnt much good neither, neil armstrong’s boots has a different tred to the footprint on the moon, the radiation belt outside the earths atmosphere, micro meteorites, the list goes on and on and on, but no, there’s another yank waiting to comment on how there great nation landed on the moon, sceptics are wrong etc etc this argument will go on for years……YAWN

  98. schuney says:

    Forget it guys. The doubters will NEVER believe, and those of us that are correct don’t need to change our beliefs. They won’t believe Osama is dead, either, so don’t get them started on that subject.

  99. to smart for you says:

    LOL @ the clown who says we didnt land on the moon because we dont have a buger king and a base on the moon. LOL @ burger king on the moon and common sense in the same sentence! and a base to defend against what? all those aliens that you think the Gov is also BSing us about? riiiiight…. those same aliens you prob believe can stay alive for the 16 billion years it would take them to travel at light speed from one end of our galexy to the other… assuming they can travel at light which they cant.

  100. John Dee says:

    to smart for you, do you mean, too smart for you? to smart for you, probably doesn’t mean what you think it means, I hope.
    I don’t believe aliens are about the place, for want of credible evidence.
    Just for the fun of an intellectual exercise tho’, if there were such things, would they have to have come from 16 billion light years away?
    Might not hypothetical aliens bored with planetary life, venture forth in self sufficient vehicles and indulge in endless journeys through space, procreating, living and dying and even evolving as they go? No fixed adress. Imagine! What a road trip!
    As a general thing, the notion that the Government wouldn’t bullshit to us, is rather a quaint idea though. Have you tried writing science fiction?

Leave a Reply